Evolution is it a 'myth'?

[Zeth]

I wanted to start this topic since last week, so I got together evidence for creationism and put it ino an outline:


-The earth is younger than we give credit to.
*Comets disintegrate too quickly.
1) The theory of evolution says comets are supposed to be as old as the solar system. Five billion years old, but every time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses too much material. It couldn't last more than 100,000 years. Most comets have a typical maximum age of about 10,000 years.
*There isn't enough mud on the sea floor.
2) Every year, erosion causes about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock to topple into the ocean. If the evolutionary theory is correct then the ocean would have much more mud than it does on the sea floor. At the rate that the mud is eroding, evidence suggests the earth is less than 12 million years old.
* There isn't enough sodium in the ocean.
3) Each year, rivers, streams and lakes dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. 27% of the sodium dumped into the ocean actually manages to get back out of it every year. The remainder just sits in the ocean. Supposing the ocean had no sodium in it to start with, the sodium would have had a chance to accumulate in less than 42 million years and a maximum of 62 million years.
*The earth's magnetic field is decaying too quickly.
4) The total amount of energy stored in the earths magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7% over the past 1000 years. At this rate, the magnetic field could not be much more than 10,000 years old.
*Strata are too tightly bent.
5) Strata thousands of feet thick, in mountainous areas, are bent and folded into a hairpin's likeness. The conventional geologic time-scale says these rock formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent, but the folding process happened without cracking, with radii was really small, suggesting that the strata was still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred, implying that the folding process occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.
*Geologic 'ages' now shorten a few years?
6) a) The Cambrian Sawatch sandstone, supposedly formed over 500 million years ago in the Ute Pass Fault, just west of Colorado Springs. Allegedly, it was still liquified when it reached the surface of the earth, 70 million years ago. Why would it not have solidified in the 430 million years it was still underground? More likely that these two geologic events were less than a couple of hundred years apart.
b) Radiohalo's rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive material. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. Squashed Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in Colorado plateau were put there months between one another, rather than millions of years apart of one another, as said of the conventional time scale.
* Not enough 'Stone Age' skeletons.
7) Evolutionary anthropologists say that the 'Stone Age' lasted for a long time, at least 100,000 years, and the population of the Neanderthal and the Cro-magnon man were steadily constant. Between 1-10 million, during that time they buried their dead with artifacts. If this is correct, these men should have buried at least 4 billion bodies. According to the geologic time-scale, bones should last much longer than 100,000 years, suggesting that all of the 'Stone Age' bones would still be around. Only a few thousand have been found, implying that the 'Stone Age' was much shorter than most thought. At tops, maybe a few hundred years.
*Agriculture still hasn't worn off it's 'newness.'
8) The picture that evolution has painted is that men were hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the 'Stone Age' before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence suggests that 'Stone Age' men were as intelligent as we are now. It is improbable that it took over 4 billion 'Stone Age' men to discover something as simple as agriculture. It is more probable to say that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after Noah's flood, if at all.
* No history lessons for the common 'Stone Age' man?
9) Evolutionists say that the 'Stone Age' man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to attempt to write things down, about 4000-5000 years ago, but prehistoric man built giant monuments, drew cave paintings and kept records of the moon's phases. Why wait a thousands of years before even trying to write something down?

-Is there real evidence that man descended from apes?
*Are the 'missing links' still missing? Look at some of the most famous discoveries made by scientists below, claiming that these are the 'missing links.'
--Australopithecus-- or 'Lucy' – there are various species of these that have at times proclaimed to be 'human ancestors.' One remains the Australopithecus afarensis, or 'Lucy,' but detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones imply that our friend 'Lucy' and her 'species' were not on their way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, like us, but not in a human manor. Australopithecus afarensis very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
--Homo sapiens neanderthalensis-- or the Neanderthal man, 150 years ago, the 'Neanderthal' reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man.' It has now come to light that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that the 'Neanderthal' is just a variation of common man.
--Ramapithecus-- They were once widely regarded as the ancestor of man, it has been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan.
--Eoanthropus-- The 'Piltdown man' was a hoax based upon a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the 'missing link' for over 40 years.
--Hesperopithecus-- The 'Nebraska man' was a single tooth. Now found to be a pigs tooth only found in Paraguay.
--Pithecanthropus-- The 'Java man' is now renamed Homo erectus. See below.
--Sinanthropus-- The 'Peking man' was once presented as another 'missing link,' now classified as a Homo erectus. See below.
--Homo erectus-- Many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average man today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain). The brain size, however, is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown us that Homo erectus was just likes you and me. Remains found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary humans, showing that they lived together.
--Australopithecus africanus-- This, at one time, was also promoted as the 'missing link.' It is no longer considered to be from the line of apes to humans. It is very ape like.
--Homo habilis-- There is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of other species, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon,' it never existed.

-Other random excerpts.

Apparent Design:
All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why. Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.
Origin of life:
Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life. Sir Fred Hoyle and Charles Wickramasinghe stated in their book, Evolution from Space, that “they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme or protein at random, in a rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than one in 10 to the 20th power.” Next, they calculated the likelihood of forming all of the 2000+ enzymes used in the life forms of earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power. They popularized the following cliché: “belief in the chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.”
Development of life and the tree of life:
Evolutionists believe all life developed from the original life that Sir Fred Hoyle said had no chance of occurring. Nevertheless, evolutionists have postulated an evolutionary tree of life showing how the various life forms developed. If their postulate were correct, many transitional life forms would have existed between the ancestor and the descendant’s time. Now, after 150 years of searching for fossils since Darwin, zero transitional fossils have been found of the millions of fossils collected. Confirming this lack of evidence is Gould's oft-quoted words: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. . .I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks."
DNA and complexity:
Recent advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of DNA and the living cell. The human DNA molecules are the chromosomes that comprise the human genome. The purpose of the DNA is to specify the information for the human blueprint. Information is separate from the chemicals that are just the media for the information. Only intelligence can generate information. How can we believe that such complicated information could have generated randomly?

New knowledge about the cell is equally incompatible with random origin. A cell is extremely complex and the way it performs its functions is similar to a sophisticated factory. The way DNA is self-repairing, the way RNA works with DNA, and the way proteins are synthesized using RNA templates screams of a Designer.
Dualism/Consciousness:
Scientists have found that the brain and mind are separate entities. Wilder Penfield said, “Through performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and the mind are actually distinct from each other, although they clearly interact."
Thermodynamics 2nd law:
This law, known as the law of entropy, applies not only to usable energy but equally to organization and things wearing out. The natural flow is from organized to unorganized, complex to random, new to “worn out.” We see this principle in our everyday lives. Energy, applied with intelligence, is necessary to reverse the ever-increasing entropy or randomness of creation.

Question # 24, page 82 of the Bible Answer Book for Students by Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Man:

How Can We Be Sure That Evolution Is a Myth?

Dr. Luis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, calls evolution “a fairy tale for grown-ups.” I call it a cruel hoax! In fact, the arguments that support evolutionary theory are incredibly weak.
First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day, fossil finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, we have plenty of fossils- yet we haven't found even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Furthermore, in Darwin's day such complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple- for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it's incredible that people are willing to maintain that something so complex happened by chance. Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that couldn't of happened by chance.
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes-energy conservation and entropy- strengthen the creation model for origins and weaken the evolutionary hypothesis. While I would fight for a person's right to have faith in science fiction, we must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evolution is science.

Psalm 19:1-4
“The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour fourth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth,
Their words to the ends of the world.”



Question # 25, page 84 of the Bible Answer Book for Students by Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Man:

Did Darwin Have a Deathbed Conversion?

In order to demonstrate the falseness of evolution, Bible-believing Christians for more than a century have passed on the story of Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion. Evolutionists have attempted to counter them by loudly protesting that Darwin died believing that Christianity was a fraud and that chance was the creator.
In response, it should first be noted that whether Darwin did or didn't renounce evolution doesn't speak to the issue of whether evolution is true or false. Maybe Darwin renounced evolution because he was senile or had taken a mind-altering drug. He may have even just hedged his bets with some “eternal fire insurance.”
As followers of the One who proclaimed Himself to be not only “the way” and “the life” but also “the truth” (John 14:6), we have not set the standard for the evolutionist, not vice versa. James Fegan was correct when he described the Darwin legend as “an illustration of the recklessness with which the Protestant Controversialists seek to support any cause they are advocating.”
In The Darwin Legend, James Moore painstakingly documents the fact that there is no substantial evidence that Darwin ever repented, but there is abundant evidence that he consistently held to his evolutionary paradigm.

Exodus 20:16
“You shall not give false testimony
against your neighbor.”

Sources used:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-against-evolution-faq.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/
Bible Answer Book for Students by Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Man


I'm sure there's more, but ths is all I feel like posting right now.

[Rikachu]

Okay, you might find me 'stupid' or 'weird' for this, but I believe in Creationism AND evolution. :)

[Zeth]

Okay, you might find me 'stupid' or 'weird' for this, but I believe in Creationism AND evolution. :)

No, just confused, because you see, what eveloution does, it cancels out the Bible, evolution says that we have evolved from single celled beings, whereas, the Bible says we have been formed by God, and He breathed the breath of life into us. Two different things.

[Rikachu]

No, just confused, because you see, what eveloution does, it cancels out the Bible, evolution says that we have evolved from single celled beigs, whereas, the Bible says we have been formed by God, and He breathed the breath of life into us. Two diffent things.

I didn't say I believe ALL of it. I don't believe that we came from apes, or what you stated. :)

[Zeth]

I didn't say I believe ALL of it. I don't believe that we came from apes, or what you stated. :)

?? Okay... explain :)

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

I dunno... I never could bring myself to believe in evolution but a creationist theory is just as far-fetched, but not by much. It's easier to grasp the concept of an invisible, intelligent creator who made everything just perfect to sustain life than to believe that there was an explosion and everything formed perfectly to sustain life. Sorry, I didn't read your first post Zeth but I don't doubt your research. Good going!

[Rikachu]

My -personal- belief is that when the world was created, the Big Bang -did- happen, just not in the way scientists describe it. I believe that the dinosaurs were here, but they eventually died out. I believe that God then took them and made the new species from they're DNA, and then evolution set in. It's a good way to believe in religion and logic, and is comfortable for me. :)

[Zeth]

I dunno... I never could bring myself to believe in evolution but a creationist theory is just as far-fetched, but not by much. It's easier to grasp the concept of an invisible, intelligent creator who made everything just perfect to sustain life than to believe that there was an explosion and everything formed perfectly to sustain life. Sorry, I didn't read your first post Zeth but I don't doubt your research. Good going!

Thanks!!

[BR_FL]

the Bible says we have been formed by God, and He breathed the breath of life into us. Two different things.

Why couldn't have God breathed life into us by creating the circumstances that caused the evolution of the humans we are today? As you said, the statistics of proteins forming into a form of life are very slim. But we were that one planet that got lucky. The universe is big. There are more planets than 10^20. Obviously that statistic will be put to the test.

Furthermore, why does it matter how God created us specifically? And because the Bible is written by man inspired by God, the writers are trying to convey his message in ways that the people could understand at that time. The creation story really is just that, a symbolic story used to show that God created the human race out of his love.

[Zeth]

Why couldn't have God breathed life into us by creating the circumstances that caused the evolution of the humans we are today? As you said, the statistics of proteins forming into a form of life are very slim. But we were that one planet that got lucky. The universe is big. There are more planets than 10^20. Obviously that statistic will be put to the test.

Furthermore, why does it matter how God created us specifically? And because the Bible is written by man inspired by God, the writers are trying to convey his message in ways that the people could understand at that time. The creation story really is just that, a symbolic story used to show that God created the human race out of his love.

Ispired is definatly not the right word. You may believe that, but I believe the Bible is God's exact words to us.

/shortrant

I forgot the most important thing, Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if we came from monkeys, why are they still here?

[Rikachu]

Ispired is definatly not the right word. You may believe that, but I believe the Bible is God's exact words to us.

/shortrant

I forgot the most important thing, Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if we came from monkeys, why are they still here?

-___-' You do know the bible has been translated many times, right? Not everything can possibly be correct.

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

I forgot the most important thing, Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if we came from monkeys, why are they still here?

I always wondered this and thought it the biggest, most obvious flaw in the evolution theory but, apparently, it was another type of primate that evolved and left it's cousins behind. Or so I'm told. I don't really follow the research.

[appelsapgodin]

Edit: Deleted long post with intelligent arguments and sharp witty responses. I think I'm just gonna go watch the last episodes of Battlestar Galactica instead of getting into this debate.

@Riblan & Cuddlesdaetcetera... That there are still monkeys around just means that to evolve as a species and become the 'victorious' so to say, you don't need to destroy and kill everything around you.

[DrowningFishy]

Um there is more then one theory on how life began on earth not just the meteor. There's the hydrothermal vents theory and the big soupy soup of life, and I think another I forget. Also the atmosphere back then was very different from today to. Not to mention one continent. The variations from today carry on and on. To see the earth today and think it was the same billions of years ago is deceiving.

The reason why they think life began that way is because they played with conditions and behold they got amino acids to form.

Basically (from college text book):

Early Speculations on the Origins of Life Lacked
Experimental Evidence
In the 1920s and 1930s, the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin and the Scottish biochemist
J.B. S. Haldane wrote a series of papers that sparked contemporary interests in life’s origins.
They reasoned that Earth’s early atmosphere was considerably different from
today’s atmosphere.Where is the evidence? Astronomers at the time studied the atmospheres
of other planets in the solar system and found little free oxygen.Why should
the early Earth be different? Also, rocks that were on Earth’s surface 3 billion or so
years ago contain free iron. In today’s atmosphere, free iron quickly reacts with oxygen
to form rust (iron oxide). The absence of rust in those ancient rocks suggests Earth’s
ancient atmosphere had no free oxygen.
What gases would be present in the early atmosphere? Oparin and Haldane speculated
on an abundance of methane, ammonia, nitrogen, water vapor, and, perhaps, free
hydrogen.They also envisioned a variety of energy sources present on primitive Earth.
Earthquakes and lightning would have been more common than today. No free oxygen
would mean no ozone layer in the outer atmosphere to keep the sun’s ultraviolet radiation
from reaching Earth’s surface. All those energy sources working on all those atmospheric
chemicals would have stimulated chemical reactions. In particular, amino
acids, the building blocks of proteins, which are the building blocks of cells, would arise—
dare we say it—spontaneously.
Initially, Oparin’s and Haldane’s speculations were not well received.Will the idea of
spontaneous generation never go away? Besides, where is the evidence? How can there
possibly be evidence? Skeptics reasoned that the formation of amino acids would have
taken millions, perhaps billions of years to occur. Untestable hypotheses in the absence of
evidence are nothing more than idle speculation—little more than science fiction.
Early Experiments Spontaneously Produced Organic Compounds
The speculations could well have died then, except for an ingenious experiment conducted
in 1952. Harold Urey of the University of Chicago and Stanley Miller, a graduate student,
built an apparatus that modeled Oparin’s and Haldane’s atmosphere (Figure 9-2).They
used electric sparks to simulate lightning in a simulated atmosphere of methane,
ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and water vapor.Water in a flask simulated an ocean. The
water’s evaporation and condensation simulated the water cycle.Amazingly, in less than
a week, their water turned cloudy. Amino acids had formed!

[1ove]

Dude, I knew this one was going to come up sooner or later.

Almost all Christians don't believe in evolution, stem cell research, and all those other creation worldly theories.

[DrowningFishy]

Look at how many new species are discovered every year, you honestly think that they've always been here? If evolution did not happen, why are there dinosaurs? HECK why are there no dinosaur bones with human bones or let say a elephant (not mammoth). I am certain a T-Rex did not eat Geoffry the Giraffe.

[Splurgy]

Ugh.
Ok, first of all, Darwin's religious status and all that jazz is irrelevant here. Now, as for what you've said, I'm sure some of those things are compelling and merit research but I'd like to see the sources on them.
As for some of the things like "it is improbable that it took over 4 billion 'Stone Age' men to discover something as simple as agriculture." That's literally just conjecture.
And "Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes-energy conservation and entropy" - well, civilisation in itself goes against the laws of entropy. Some of these laws are only very generalised.
I'm not a researcher, I'm a student, but even I can smell when something's a bit iffy. I'd like to see proof.

[Zeth]

-___-' You do know the bible has been translated many times, right? Not everything can possibly be correct.


...You can get it translated directly from Hebrew and Greek to english...

[Rikachu]

...You can get it translated directly from Hebrew and Greek to english...

I meant from it's original language. :rolleyes:

Edit: Deleted long post with intelligent arguments and sharp witty responses. I think I'm just gonna go watch the last episodes of Battlestar Galactica instead of getting into this debate.

@Riblan & Cuddlesdaetcetera... That there are still monkeys around just means that to evolve as a species and become the 'victorious' so to say, you don't need to destroy and kill everything around you.

.... I never questioned why they didn't die out.

[Zeth]

I meant from it's original language. :rolleyes:



...Hebrew and Greek are it's original languages...

[Rikachu]

...Hebrew and Greek are it's original languages...

yes, and it had to be originally translated from that. The current translation isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when the original bible was copied.

[Zeth]

yes, and it had to be originally translated from that. The current translation isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when the original bible was copied.

Like when they originally wrote it down? If that's the case they copied it directly....

[BR_FL]

Believing the Bible is God's direct, specific word is a bit naive, if not, borderline fairytale. God may be perfect, but man is definitely not. They will interpret things differently, even if they portray the same message God intended. Again, why does the messenger matter when the message is what's important.

Say God did give us his exact word through the Bible. Translating from a language to another will never turn up a direct translations. Every language has expressions or words that cannot be replicated. One example is the belief that homosexuality is directly or even indirectly condemned in the Bible (It isn't).

Also, to clear things up. We did not evolve from apes and monkeys. We have a common ancestor according to evolution. Saying we evolved from monkeys and them not dying out is proof of creationism is just ignorance.



Almost all Christians don't believe in evolution, stem cell research, and all those other creation worldly theories.

Please, Please, tell me that was tongue in cheek.

[DrowningFishy]

The bible has been hand copied for a long time. It is even said because of a simple error Lucifer might not actually be a fallen angel due to a misplaced coma. I agree I am going to go watch battlestar galatica to that sounds better then pointless circles.

[kattenijin]

*EDIT*

Oh,... why bother.


Second Edit:


...Hebrew and Greek are it's original languages...


Almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew during the thousand years of its composition. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic.

This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language he spoke day by day.

The New Testament, was mostly written in Greek, some Aramaic words were used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament. Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed Jewish leaders. Around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. They did not, however, use classical Greek, but a common, everyday type of Greek. For many years some scholars ridiculed the Greek of the New Testament because many of its words were strange to those who read the writings of the great Greek classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle.


Ispired is definatly not the right word. You may believe that, but I believe the Bible is God's exact words to us.

Have you ever eaten a cheeseburger, jello, or a pizza with any kind of meat topping? Do you own any clothing or household linnens that are a blend of two or more types of fabric?

[LarsVegas]

It seems that you are arguing in favor of a young Earth creationist point of view. If that is what you want to believe, it is your choice; however, despite never taking an official poll, a good number of Christians no longer adhere to the belief that the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old. Many of them do not fully accept the theory of evolution, but this young Earth vs. old Earth debate is an entirely different argument.

I am not a Christian, but I have known plenty of them throughout my life. The topic of evolution comes up every now and then, and you have the ones who out-right reject the entire concept, and others who choose a more neutral position. It seems that today, the theory of evolution combined with creationism has growing support in a number of Christian denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some branches of Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist). Some of the more Conservative branches fully reject the theory of evolution (or do not wish to comment), but this does not mean they believe the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old. In fact, growing up, I can only recall a select few who subscribed to this young Earth idea, and they we were from some of the more radical, literalist branches of Christianity.

[KeiraLou]

I believe in evolution to the very end! Something can always be logically explained, although it is a little hard to come to terms with the fact we were once apes but then I would find it harder coming to terms with the fact we just appeared and were bought to life by a being that no one has ever even seen.

I don't judge those who believe in god, in fact I envy them as I have a obsessive fear of death and dying so it would be nice to believe in somthing, I just can't bring myself to do it though. Nothing is a mystery, there is always an answer somewhere.

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

I believe in evolution to the very end! Something can always be logically explained, although it is a little hard to come to terms with the fact we were once apes but then I would find it harder coming to terms with the fact we just appeared and were bought to life by a being that no one has ever even seen.

I don't judge those who believe in god, in fact I envy them as I have a obsessive fear of death and dying so it would be nice to believe in somthing, I just can't bring myself to do it though. Nothing is a mystery, there is always an answer somewhere.

Yeah, I'm afraid of dying and the thought of 'ceasing to exist' frightens me. It's just hard to get back into religion though because you have to abide by these strict rules if you want to be a member of our clubhouse when you pass on. It's either that or burn with the rest of the trash.

To believe in evolution is pacifying in that your actions do not determine what kind of everlasting punishment or reward your soul earns at the end, but knowing that there is nothing and my consciousness just fades into non-existence is just as unsettling.

I am not a Christian, but I have known plenty of them throughout my life. The topic of evolution comes up every now and then, and you have the ones who out-right reject the entire concept, and others who choose a more neutral position. It seems that today, the theory of evolution combined with creationism has growing support in a number of Christian denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and some branches of Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Methodist). Some of the more Conservative branches fully reject the theory of evolution (or do not wish to comment), but this does not mean they believe the Earth is roughly 10,000 years old. In fact, growing up, I can only recall a select few who subscribed to this young Earth idea, and they we were from some of the more radical, literalist branches of Christianity.

Yeah, Christianity is notorious for taking other beliefs and assimilating it with their own. Christmas and Easter are one example. Now, some are embracing an 'Old Earth' theory and saying 'God made us evolve' to assimilate evolutionists. It won't be long before some start accepting homosexuality... oh wait...

[davious]

No, it is not a myth. I believe in what I dub evolutionary creationism...that is, God is the creator of the universe, and Earth, and that evolution is the tool by which he made humans and animals the way we are. There are a few possibilities how evolution could be wrong, none of which make much logical sense.

Possibility 1:Carbon dating is bad science.

If carbon dating, as a science, is flat out wrong, it would require every scientist that has ever looked at the science behind carbon dating to be in error. It would require a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of the universe. I don't believe God would give us the intelligence to explore creation, and yet give us the fatal flaw so that we can't tell how old it is. Doesn't make sense to me.

Possibility 2: Carbon dating is good science, but, God has pre-aged creation to fool us. As a christian, the problems I would have with this theory should be obvious, but, in case they aren't, it would require God to be deceitful. It would require outright lying. Doesn't make sense. Why would God create something young, only to make it look old?

Only thing that makes sense to both logic and faith, is that both God created us, and evolution created us. That, the Earth is as old as it appears to be, because then our science is good, and God has not deceived us.

You need to take a western civilization class, Cuddles. Christians only took the pagan holidays because they had no choice. The Romans had pagan holidays throughout the calendar year, and when the Christians wanted to holidays to celebrate their faith, they were told that they either do it on a day already selected as a pagan day, or not do it at all. They were forced to accept a pagan holiday and have their own holiday coincide. They didn't simply rip the dates off, as you imply.

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

You need to take a western civilization class, Cuddles. Christians only took the pagan holidays because they had no choice. The Romans had pagan holidays throughout the calendar year, and when the Christians wanted to holidays to celebrate their faith, they were told that they either do it on a day already selected as a pagan day, or not do it at all. They were forced to accept a pagan holiday and have their own holiday coincide. They didn't simply rip the dates off, as you imply.

Sorry. I used to study with Jehovah's Witnesses and that was what I was told. I think I also remember a Simpson's episode that hinted at the same thing (I'm not saying that's a good source but it's the common consensus).

[Vanito]

Ispired is definatly not the right word. You may believe that, but I believe the Bible is God's exact words to us.

/shortrant

I forgot the most important thing, Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if we came from monkeys, why are they still here?
Evolution did not say we came from moneys. Evolution learns humans and apes have a common ancestor. Neither do you seem to grasp what "survival of the fittest" means. You just know the phrase but you don't seem to know what the concept holds.

Great that you can quote and copy from websites, but your post just shows you reject evolution while not even knowing what actual evolution holds.

It makes no sense to dicuss evolution with someone who aint know what evolution theory is about.

So many anti evolutionists post things which shows they do not know the basics of evolution. They prefer not to look things up and copy lies to eachother. Unimaginable people put so much effort in disproving a theory they do even know.

(whoever made up this kind of nonsense and spreaded it on the internet was a great manipulator)

[VladCrau]

Okay, you might find me 'stupid' or 'weird' for this, but I believe in Creationism AND evolution. :)

I agree with you on this.

For many years, I had a hard time deciding: Evolutionism or Creationism? The, one day, I saw a scientist on TV (unfortunately, I didn't get his name), who was discussing exactly this topic. I cannot reproduce his exact speech, but the closing line was something like this:
"Everybody has read the Bible. And the Bible says that the world was created by God in six days. Ever thought that each "day" took millions of years...?"

[BeechWell2]

Ok, I'll try and answer what I can from the top of my head to this huge, and I must say frighteningly misleading, piece of text:



*Comets disintegrate too quickly.
1) The theory of evolution says comets are supposed to be as old as the solar system. Five billion years old, but every time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses too much material. It couldn't last more than 100,000 years. Most comets have a typical maximum age of about 10,000 years.
The theory is that comets come from the outer regions of the solar system, the Cuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. There they can float around in space for eternity without melting. Only when pieces of this "debris" collide (using the term loosely here) they may get shot towards the sun and become comets. This happens occasionally all the time, so the lifespan of a single comet is no indication of the age of the solar system itself.
*There isn't enough mud on the sea floor.
Could be true if the earth's crust was completely static. Even then I would expect some parts of the oceans to fill up and new bodies of water to be created elsewhere over time.
However, the driving force of continental drift rearranges the surface of the earth anyway. So erosion doesn't have the time to fill up one static ocean over millions of years.
* There isn't enough sodium in the ocean.
Ok, I don't know near enough about the sodium household of the oceans to answer that. But It is easy to imagine additional factors that take sodium out of the water. Maybe it gets bonded into the sediment chemically if the concentration in the water becomes too high?
*The earth's magnetic field is decaying too quickly.
The magnetic field is know to shift strength and direction constantly. In fact we know from magnetic particles found in consolidated mud that every so often the direction of the magnetic field would completely reverse itself (so a compass would pint south rather than north) - I think every 10.000-100.000 years or so. between these reversals the magnetic field would oscillate from 0 to it's maximum power and back again.
So of course the decrease of the magnetic field doesn't correspond with the age of the earth. It is merely the end of a relatively small episode.
*Strata are too tightly bent.
Again I don't know enough geo-physics to answer that. If it really is a real problem (and not something made up by creationists) then I would like to see some scientific works about it before I believe it.

*Geologic 'ages' now shorten a few years?
Both very specific instances that may or may not have a satisfactory explanation (Usually they do). For the Cambrian Sawatch I suppose the liquid was in some sort of cave and not subjected to the full force of the pressure of the surrounding material. Or it only liquefied later shortly before it rose to the surface.
For the b) part, I don't even know what exactly you are talking about. Of course I cannot answer that without further research.
* Not enough 'Stone Age' skeletons.
Bones do not last forever in the earth at all. I think they usually decay within some years, a few dozen years at most. If all the bones that ever existed where still around any old-earth theory would indeed have fundamental problems.
We can only find old bones (and other organic matter) if they are petrified, which basically means replaced by rock. the organic material of the bones is long gone by then. And because this petrification only occurs under rather special circumstances, we only ever see a tiny fraction of the remains of any prehistoric humans or even extinct animals.
Which is of course also the reason why we can't find every single link between humans and the creatures we descended from.

*Agriculture still hasn't worn off it's 'newness.'
Invention of new techniques doesn't happen automatically. We live in a society that places great emphasis on science and invention. Plus we are probably way more "intelligent" than early humans simply by our environment and education.
Even within recorded history the pace of scientific progress varies a lot. And that has not only to do with simple intelligence, but also with how much of it you can invest to try out new and questionable ideas. See how much the European cultures developed in the time the Australian aborigines stayed true to the same way of life.
Also the shift from a society of hunters and gatherers to an agricultural one isn't all that simple. To successfully grow your own food you need to be able to tend it, protect it and most importantly give up your nomadic lifestyle to stay put at one place for many months.
Actually I belief the agricultural revolution must have happened due to external pressures that made the old nomadic lifestyle difficult or even impossible to continue.

* No history lessons for the common 'Stone Age' man?
See the point above. Even if we see it as obvious today it must have been a huge step to even think of such abstract ideas as writing in the first place. And that only happened within larger civilizations that had both the leisure and the need to put thoughts into words.

-Is there real evidence that man descended from apes?
*Are the 'missing links' still missing? Look at some of the most famous discoveries made by scientists below, claiming that these are the 'missing links.'
Ok, I won't go into detail for that one. Suffice to say that science is never a straight clear-cut path full of eternal truths. The scientific method is full of trial and error, false paths and even fraud. But still as you see in the world around us it is very successful. And it is in fact even the inherent uncertainty of science and the constant self-control and self-observation that goes with it, that makes it's answers eventually so much more reliable than the unquestioning reliance on eternal truths of religion.
Sure, the exact status of many fossils is debated (debated, not necessarily wrong), but the general structure of gradual mutation is too well documented to be seriously questioned by now.
And we don't even need to rely on fossils to determine relationships between species - we can see paths of development in the genetic code of different species, including genetic defects like inactive genetic "waste" and "scars" from viruses that infects common ancestors of different species.
Also note that the evolutionary history of a species isn't a straight line. It's more like a large tree with many branches - some of which have disappeared over time, others are still around. And in the fossil record we only see individual pin-points of this huge tree. And those even in usually bad conditions. Of course it is hard to create a reliable map of the whole tree from that. And mistakes and disputes will always happen. That is part of the scientific method.

All life appears to be designed, and evolutionists have failed to adequately explain why.
Sorry to be blunt, but that is just nonsense. No life appears designed. Sometimes design and natural processes come to similar results. Often design copies natural processes, but they are still fundamentally different. The human body is not one coherent "machine" designed exactly for hat we use it for:
The knee-caps are an unnecessarily vulnerable point and would be considered bad design; neither the vermiform appendix nor the toenails have a clear function; the process of blood clotting is unnecessarily complicated; our embryos still have tails for a while; not to mention all the unused baggage we carry around in our genetic code.

Adaptation to environmental changes, mutations, and natural selection has not validated macroevolution.
Also nonsense (sorry). We know that the principal mechanism of evolution works. It has been demonstrated on software, electronic circuits and other non-biological systems. We also have a biological structure - common to all known life ! - that is capable of adapting and mutating and thus work as an evolutionary agent. And we also know how environmental changes can act as pressure to force life to adapt in new ways.
Everything else - the whole micro- macro-evolution concept is just phenotyp. On a cellular stage there is no different at all between the two.

Origin of life:
Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation of life.[...]
What? When? Where? Did he disprove the spontaneous development of complex life out of (static) non-organic environment? I certainly won't disagree there. But that has nothing to do with how life probably came to be.
Life doesn't start with a whole enzyme or protein. Before the biological evolution comes a chemical one. Urey and Miller demonstrated that biological material can develop from anorganic matter - given the right circumstances.
Sure, life didn't come about exactly as in their experiment, but the principle remains the same.
Biological molecules don't each have to be formed by completely by chance. Once you have a couple of simple organic molecules these can interact chemically with their surroundings and over time create other and more complex molecules, up to enzymes and proteins. Chance plays a part here, but it's not like the whole thing has to be assembled from scratch.
That is why such musings as those of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe have are futile number games. not related to reality at all.


Development of life and the tree of life:
Ah, I already treated that in the part of human evolution.

DNA and complexity:
[...]Only intelligence can generate information. [...]
Again this completely unfounded assumption. Information can easily be gained from completely random processes. Just use a appropriate filter; and such filters can simply be the laws of nature.

New knowledge about the cell is equally incompatible with random origin.
As I said before, the development of the cell isn't a completely random process. That still doesn't necessitate some form of intelligence to happen. See Langton's ant for an example of complicated structures generated solely out of a simple set of rules (much more simple than the rules that govern our universe).

Dualism/Consciousness:
Scientists have found that the brain and mind are separate entities.
Of course. The mind is the result of neurological processes within the brain. Not the same, but still related and rooted completely in the physical world.

Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes-energy conservation and entropy-
I thought the entropy argument is already on the list of "arguments not to use when contesting evolution"?
The second law of thermodynamics is only true for closed systems. Life forms aren't closed systems: They constantly exchange heat and entropy with their surroundings. No physical law prohibits the decrease of entropy in such an open system. It merely means that somewhere else the entropy must increase (lifeforms break up chemical structures and generate heat, for example).

I am sorry for this long post and any possible rantings within. Certainly not everything I wrote is completely correct, but for all these things more comprehensive articles exist on the internet and elswhere.
But at least I had some fun, and cookies to all who actually read through all this *throws cookies into the air* :D

[Neil__]

Evolution is as close to an absolute proven scientific fact as gravity or the Earth orbiting the Sun.

[DrowningFishy]

I believe in evolution, but I will not throw out the fact that maybe something gave us a shove in the direction we went. One thing we know about life is that it is unpredictable.

One thing that amazes me is for about a thousand years Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (we're Homo sapiens sapiens) co existed. It is a debate whether they died off or interbreed with us.

Why didn't apes die out and we survived? Do you think there was just one of us? (http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html) There was more then just one humanoid life, but we are the humanoid like form that made it.

Oh and SURPRISE, new fossil evidence suggests we didn't evolve in Africa. Newer earlier carbon dated fossils have been found in Asia.


Just for the heck of it: (http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/)

[Neil__]

I believe in evolution, but I will not throw out the fact that maybe something gave us a shove in the direction we went. One thing we know about life is that it is unpredictable.

One thing that amazes me is for about a thousand years Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (we're Homo sapiens sapiens) co existed. It is a debate whether they died off or interbreed with us.

Why didn't apes die out and we survived? Do you think there was just one of us? (http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html) There was more then just one humanoid life, but we are the humanoid like form that made it.

Oh and SURPRISE, new fossil evidence suggests we didn't evolve in Africa. Newer earlier carbon dated fossils have been found in Asia.

Just for the heck of it: (http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/)I have seen that before about the Asian connection, I think that the studies are underestimating the date at which humans started to migrate, there are many arguments in the field that say we migrated many tens of thousands of years before those accepted , I believe this is causing confusion as to our origins.
It seems logical, that considering we have a mutual ancestor with chimpanzees, we evolved in Africa.

[Oaktree]

I believe evolution because it is the most plausible idea at the moment. However, science is alway discovering new truths, so I'm not so set in stone about it that I won't change if something more logical is discovered. Besides, no one has to take evolution exactly as Darwin wrote it. Maybe evolution happens a lot faster than Darwin posits, which would make finding fossil evidence for the "missing link" much harder to discover because there would be less fossil evidence. For that matter, it's not like we know everything there is to know about our planet. We have by no means discovered all the fossil evidence our planet holds. Archeologists are digging up new and exciting discoveries all the time. We may not know the truth about evolution within our lifetimes, but if we remain dedicated to science and discovery, we will know one day.

[Neil__]

I believe evolution because it is the most plausible idea at the moment. However, science is alway discovering new truths, so I'm not so set in stone about it that I won't change if something more logical is discovered.
To upturn evolution would mean that science as it exists today could never be trusted on anything, If we accept that then even red, as a colour, cant be trusted, Hmmmm


Besides, no one has to take evolution exactly as Darwin wrote it. Maybe evolution happens a lot faster than Darwin posits, which would make finding fossil evidence for the "missing link" much harder to discover because there would be less fossil evidence. For that matter, it's not like we know everything there is to know about our planet..

Science knows more than enough to dismiss irrational arguments, as long as you have a preponderance of evidence then a theory holds up, no holes for your god to hide in will ever remain open. No arguments against logic and evidence will ever stop happening just because someone says he has found an artefact that doesn’t fit evolution. doesn't mean that artefact is even genuine. The mass of evidence is irrefutable


. We have by no means discovered all the fossil evidence our planet holds. Archeologists are digging up new and exciting discoveries all the time. We may not know the truth about evolution within our lifetimes, but if we remain dedicated to science and discovery, we will know one day


We arent taking evolution exactly as darwin wrote it,

We do know the truth, there are holes but the theory is sound, every new fossile fits perfectly,

There is no doubt, I looked through my chocolate chip sundae and not all the chips looked like they were made by the chip machine,
There is no way that all the chocolate chips came out of that machine,
GOD made my chocolate chips different by design.
Or maybe Darwin modified the nozzle?

I know which argument I accept.

[Mistermook]

I find it amazingly easier to believe and understand evolution than to believe someone who cut and paste their challenges to evolution from places that can't grasp what evolution is and isn't, to the point where they're mixing geology and astronomy with biology. All it indicates to me is that people who have serious problems with evolution are severely undereducated or educated in the wrong disciplines to make judgments on evolution.

[Neil__]

I find it amazingly easier to belief and understand evolution than to believe someone who cut and paste their challenges to evolution from places that can't grasp what evolution is and isn't, to the point where they're mixing geology and astronomy with biology. All it indicates to me is that people who have serious problems with evolution are severely undereducated or educated in the wrong disciplines to make judgments on evolution.
It doesn't take an understanding of any other subject to accept evolution, it can be understood by anyone,
It takes an understanding of dozens of scientific theories to even try and refute it.
This is why "God did it" is easier to dismiss than trying to refute evolution.
The dismissal of evolution requires arguments in the fields of palaeontology, genetics, anatomy, hereditary, biology, microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc, etc

It is so easy to dismiss something from a lack of understanding.
If you learn about the world it is so much harder…..

[Mistermook]

Not to mention a cognitive disconnection from reality itself. What a bastard their gods must be, that he set up the cosmos to support everyone's science but their own.

[Oaktree]

To upturn evolution would mean that science as it exists today could never be trusted on anything, If we accept that then even red, as a colour, cant be trusted, Hmmmm




Science knows more than enough to dismiss irrational arguments, as long as you have a preponderance of evidence then a theory holds up, no holes for your god to hide in will ever remain open. No arguments against logic and evidence will ever stop happening just because someone says he has found an artefact that doesn’t fit evolution. doesn't mean that artefact is even genuine. The mass of evidence is irrefutable


.

We do know the truth, there are holes but the theory is sound, every new fossile fits perfectly,

There is no doubt, I looked through my chocolate chip sundae and not all the chips looked like they were made by the chip machine,
There is no way that all the chocolate chips came out of that machine,
GOD made my chocolate chips different by design.
Or maybe Darwin modified the nozzle?

I know which argument I accept.

You seem to think that I don't believe evolution. I just said that I do. Am I not set in stone enough about it for your taste? And while I do believe evolution happened, yes, we could be wrong about it without having to throw out our entire system of science. When a theory like that is disproved, it is often because there was something that we didn't know before, not something that we really got wrong before. The truth could be something that relies on exactly the same facts, but includes one thing that we do not know. However, I think that evolution is plausible, but that we need to continue gathering evidence and data because science should never rest on its haunches. Science moves forward, rather than sitting and gloating about what it has already determined.

[kattenijin]

Christians only took the pagan holidays because they had no choice. The Romans had pagan holidays throughout the calendar year, and when the Christians wanted to holidays to celebrate their faith, they were told that they either do it on a day already selected as a pagan day, or not do it at all. They were forced to accept a pagan holiday and have their own holiday coincide. They didn't simply rip the dates off, as you imply.

SOURCE?

[Vanito]

It doesn't take an understanding of any other subject to accept evolution, it can be understood by anyone,

Yet not anyone understand or knows it as many people on this forum show. Many people have missed the point and instead hold nonsense ideas about what they think is "evolution theory". Then they try to prove the nonsense they hold for evolution wrong, which is fairly easy because it is nonsense in the first place. And state: evolution can't be true: look at this.

[Neil__]

Not to mention a cognitive disconnection from reality itself. What a bastard their gods must be, that he set up the cosmos to support everyone's science but their own.
Give me a defiant child for his/her first seven years and I will give you the rationalist.

[clockworkapple]

To upturn evolution would mean that science as it exists today could never be trusted on anything, If we accept that then even red, as a colour, cant be trusted, Hmmmm


You still believe that red is a colour? Sheeple. The one and only truth is that red is a lie created by the liberal media to degrade the catholic church and create death panels!! Satoshi Kanazawa and Ann Coulter have discussed this before, and they are the only truly rational people existing on this earth today :up:

[SuicidiaParasidia]

You still believe that red is a colour? Sheeple. The one and only truth is that red is a lie created by the liberal media to degrade the catholic church and create death panels!! Satoshi Kanazawa and Ann Coulter have discussed this before, and they are the only truly rational people existing on this earth today :up:

UGH that reminds me of those retarded " pink is the new black! " sayings.

*wishes they would burn.*

...*cough* /offtopic

[davious]

Colors don't exist, they never have. All "color" is simply various wavelengths of light. What you call a color is all in your brain, color does not have a physical form. It is an imaginary construct to describe light. It is electromagnetic radiation, nothing more. Therefore, red is not a color, because colors do not really exist anywhere but in our brains.

[Zeth]

Ok, I'll try and answer what I can from the top of my head to this huge, and I must say frighteningly misleading, piece of text:...

Wow... this is great on your part, but on my part, most of this stuff is 20 years old, I'll go back and see if I can't find more...

Evolution is as close to an absolute proven scientific fact as gravity or the Earth orbiting the Sun.

This is not true, if that is so, then evolution would not still be a theory.

[Safyre420]

This is not true, if that is so, then evolution would not still be a theory.

Scientific theory and layman's theory are 2 completely different things.

[Zeth]

Found some more stuff:

NOTE: All the Quote from christiananswers.net are NOT spam, they are direct links to the webpages I got them from, sense they are all spead out in the website, and somewhat hard to find.


This first one was so big, I didn't want to post it, here's a link (http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html).

Quote from christiananswers.net (http://http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)

What does the fossil record really teach concerning the theory of evolution? Do the fossils demonstrate the progression from simple structures to complex organisms? The following facts need to be considered:

Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals.
Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "… I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.
Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.
Fast strata formation. There is increasing evidence that many sedimentary rocks, which some thought took thousands or millions of years to accumulate, almost certainly were deposited in only months, days, hours, or minutes.
Rapid coal formation. The old Evolutionary theory about coal forming in swamps is wrong. There is increasing evidence that massive coal deposits were formed in deep flood waters. Various coal layers in the U.S. consist mainly of sheets of tree bark abraded from huge masses of uprooted trees. The bark layers were buried in mud and carbonized into coal. Coal formation is relatively quick when heat is applied.
Fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation. Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish, and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid sediments.
Wrong order for evolution. It has been reported that "80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.
The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution



Quote from christiananswers.net (http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html)

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1


Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that “God is love,” “light”, and “life” (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as “very good” (Genesis 1:31) and “perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps
The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot “explain” with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a “god of the gaps” for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that “God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution”.2

Danger NO. 3… Denial of Central Biblical Teachings
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable “ramp” leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:

Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Danger NO. 4… Loss of the Way for Finding God
The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Savior who “came to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding “God” to the evolutionary scenario.

Danger NO. 5… The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined
The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), “Christ Jesus… was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: “Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review… of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God… ”.3

Danger NO. 6… The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from “the dust of the ground” by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Savior Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.

Danger NO. 7… Loss of Biblical Chronology
The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.

Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.” This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1.Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

2.Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger NO. 8… Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

God created matter without using any available material.

God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of “cosmic evolution,” such as the “big bang” cosmology.


Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger NO. 9… Misrepresentation of Reality
The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, “Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants”.4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger NO. 10… Missing the Purpose
In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:

1.Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

2.Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

3.Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).
4.We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5.Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. “Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical.”5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

CONCLUSION
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

REFERENCES
1.This article has been adapted from chapter 8, “The Consequences of Theistic Evolution”, from Dr. Werner Gitt's book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.

2.E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.

3.Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, Munchen, 1984, pp. 21-22.

4.Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.

5.H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.

WHAT DOES THEISTIC EVOLUTION INVOLVE?*
* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.
The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:

The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.

It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.

As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.

The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.

The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.

The present is the key to the past.

There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.

Evolution will persist into the distant future.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

1.God used evolution as a means of creating.

2.The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.

3.Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.

Quote from christiananswers.net (http://www.http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html)

NOT ENOUGH HELIUM

All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.

A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)

Quote from christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html)

Why do so many scientists endorse evolution?

The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye?

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.




G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.




19.Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.

20.Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.

[Neil__]

Refute all the scientific arguments for evolution and maybe then, once you hae proven that science does not exist, then maybe, I will start to try and understand intelligent design.

[Safyre420]

I'll put it this way...

Creationism is a layman's theory, there are no facts or evidence to support it. The theory of evolution has facts and evidence to support it(remember it's not the theory of the origin of life it's how we got to where we are today) thus making it a scientific theory.

[Neil__]

I'll put it this way...

Creationism is a layman's theory, there are no facts or evidence to support it. The theory of evolution has facts and evidence to support it(remember it's not the theory of the origin of life it's how we got to where we are today) thus making it a scientific theory.


It would be nice to need lawyers, but,

A scientific theory is so much more than any fact.
religion thinks the theory of evolution is an idea, they need a dictionary. you can refute an idea, the theory of evolution is irrefutable.

[Safyre420]

It would be nice to need lawyers, but,

A scientific theory is so much more than any fact.
religion thinks the theory of evolution is an idea, they need a dictionary. you can refute an idea, the theory of evolution is irrefutable.

The theory of evolution as a whole is irrefutable, as it can be observed happening right now and it has been observed. I'm sure there are more specific parts within the theory of evolution that can be refuted but wouldn't really affect the whole.

[Neil__]

Here is a question to all the theists,
Prove evolution wrong , just once
Give us any provable fact that denies any evidence for evolutions and I swear every evolutionary scientist will raise his head in wonder, revaluate all his theories,

But nothing you can ever do will change such a natural law.

I ask the religious one question?
If you are intelligent, why don’t you see the pure simplicity of evolution?

There is nothing more wonderful and perfect then the theory of evolution,

It describes all life on earth and probably every life that can ever exist, Darwin defined the nature of life,

[Vanito]

The theory of evolution as a whole is irrefutable, as it can be observed happening right now and it has been observed. I'm sure there are more specific parts within the theory of evolution that can be refuted but wouldn't really affect the whole.

So far there is NO proof for intelligent design. None. Its scientific idiotery.
Created by people who fear the thruth and prefer to keep as many people believing in nonsense as possible.

The argumenst for intelligent design has no proof AT ALL.
Evolution has a lot of proof. Yet dumb people reject evolution on having a lot of proof which they dont gunderstand and rater go for ID which has NO proof. Because "god did it all" is easy to understand.
The whole intelligent design theory makes no sense.

[Zeth]

Scientific theory and layman's theory are 2 completely different things.
The theory of evolution as a whole is irrefutable, as it can be observed happening right now and it has been observed. I'm sure there are more specific parts within the theory of evolution that can be refuted but wouldn't really affect the whole.


... I am confused as to which side you're on... :wtf:

[Safyre420]

... I am confused as to which side you're on... :wtf:

I believe in the theory of evolution, because 1) it can be observed 2) is being observed 3) has evidence to support it. It is a scientific theory, not a layman's theory like ID.

[Neil__]

quote:
Originally Posted by Safyre420
Scientific theory and layman's theory are 2 completely different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Safyre420
The theory of evolution as a whole is irrefutable, as it can be observed happening right now and it has been observed. I'm sure there are more specific parts within the theory of evolution that can be refuted but wouldn't really affect the whole.



... I am confused as to which side you're on...
[ Report this post ]
There are no sides, both arguments are the same

[Vanito]

So is this one..

PS I was denied from editing again, ...................

I believe that Delphy might believe in God. somebody here doesn't like my ideas...

Edit buttom sometimes aint work. Don't go paranoid.

[davious]

So, after getting chastised by a mod about accusing them of editing your posts (different thread), you attack the owner of the site, Neil? Smart. Real smart.

[iCad]

Oh, for heaven's sake, just go here (http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499). *is proud contributor, many moons ago* *is also born again Christian. Shocking, I know. :)* Read the "Creation Research Projects," in particular. Honestly, you have to wonder why creationists shy away from actually doing things that would support their "hypothesis" (and I use the term very loosely), preferring instead to raise uninformed, often long-debunked and usually entirely false and out-of-context "objections" to evolutionary theory. Seriously, folks, prove your own theory. It's the surest way to gain acceptance. Because really? Even if one were to somehow disprove the theory of evolution, that doesn't mean that creationism -- the young-Earth flavor of it in particular -- is automatically right. It's not a one-or-the-other kind of thing. Even if creationists manage to falsify evolution, they STILL have to demonstrate within the confines of acceptable scientific inquiry that their own hypothesis is supported. This is basic stuff, folks.

Seriously, this debate gets old because, in general, it is not a question of objections and proof and rhetoric and such. Not really. It is science, not a game of one-upsmanship. And if you have to wonder why monkeys are still around when we evolved from them, then you really, truly have no business debating this issue at all.

Seriously again, I will give credence to creationists when they offer a unified, coherent, and testable theory. They could start by defining what a "kind" is. It's basic to their "theory," but I've never met a creationist who could give a simple, straight answer to that most basic question. Since they advocate the concept of change only within a "kind" (So that they're not locked into having to deny known and documented speciation events), you'd think they'd know what a kind is. They don't. Not by a long shot. And that, of course, is but the tip of the iceberg. Whereas evolution is well-defined and well-explained whether you "believe" it or not. And, oddly enough, new discoveries don't throw it all out of whack like they tend to do with creationist "theory." Young-Earth creationists have to tie themselves in knots, inventing their own special brand of astrophysics, just to explain how we can see astronomical objects that are farther away than about 6,000 light years, invoking in particular things like a changeable speed of light. Right.

Occam's Razor, folks. It doth apply well to this "debate," yes? Further...people, if you feel you must "believe" in evolution, then I would ask if you feel as if you have to "believe" (or not) in gravitational theory. Because really? That has less scientific support than does the theory of evolution. Yes, it does.

[Sisaly]

It seems to me that most christians think that science= no god.

Evolution doesn't kill god.

And Zeth you state the word of the bible is the absolute truth.....do you eat shell fish? Cut your hair?

Hypocritical christians are the worst.
And don't give me that Old Testament crap either, as that is were all your creationism crap is coming from. You either take the whole thing or not. Not pick and choose.

[kattenijin]

And Zeth you state the word of the bible is the absolute truth.....do you eat shell fish? Cut your hair?

Hypocritical christians are the worst.
And don't give me that Old Testament crap either, as that is were all your creationism crap is coming from. You either take the whole thing or not. Not pick and choose.

Variants of ths question have been asked multiple times in multiple threads. The answer is almost always silence on the issue.

[cappyboy]

Here's a little nugget for you, Zeth. I don't think you even believe evolution is a "myth" in the appropriate sense of the term. Now I'm just going by your original list here so correct me if I'm wrong. I tend to find this topic pretty tiresome and haven't read through the rest of it. But I think a better word for your view of evolution would be "fiction" or "lie" than "myth."

A myth is a story told by a group of people to explain the otherwise unexplainable and/or values they hold dear like the various hero myths of honor and courage. In that sense, I would say BOTH evolution and creationism are myths as both are man-made explanations to the mystery of our origin. You can talk about creationism being divinely inspired if you wish. Arguing religion is part of why this tends to be a tiresome topic to me. For my purpose, being recorded by humanity = man-made.

But the academic concept of myth appears not to be the direction you're taking. You seem to be using "myth" in the more common, bastardized sense of the term which focuses on the mythic being equal to the false. And I won't go there. Both perspectives are matters of faith as far as I'm concerned. I'm too smart to argue matters of faith. People will believe what they believe on this subject and it's too rare for that to change for arguing one side or the other to be worth my energy.

[Vanito]

Oh, for heaven's sake, just go here (http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499). *is proud contributor, many moons ago* *is also born again Christian. Shocking, I know. :)* Read the "Creation Research Projects," in particular. Honestly, you have to wonder why creationists shy away from actually doing things that would support their "hypothesis" (and I use the term very loosely), preferring instead to raise uninformed, often long-debunked and usually entirely false and out-of-context "objections" to evolutionary theory.
Christian "reasearch" projects like "creationism" don't do research at all. There is ZERO evidence for "creationism" and other biblical storytales. Its a pseudoscience and fakes to be research. These kind of theories rely heavily on the lack of scientific knowlegde of the followers, because they really have NO evidence at all.

Most of those websites don't even understand the BASICS of evolution theory. They misquote the whole thing so they can prove it false.

They even cut in interviews to let Dawkins say he believes in god while every idiot can look up Dawkins thinks religion is nonsense. They put so much effort into misguiding their followers its unbelievable. Anything to divert attention away from the fact their theories are fairytales and have nothing to do with science.

It seems to me that most christians think that science= no god.
Evolution doesn't kill god.
And Zeth you state the word of the bible is the absolute truth.....do you eat shell fish? Cut your hair?
Hypocritical christians are the worst.
And don't give me that Old Testament crap either, as that is were all your creationism crap is coming from. You either take the whole thing or not. Not pick and choose.
If you belive the WHOLE bible to be true, it cuts out evolution. If you see part of it as not true (like 99.9% of christians) then they can go together.

Truly following the bible:
Kill everyone who works on the sabbath day
Kill everyone who divorces or cheats.
Kill every woman who aint a virgin on her wedding night
Kill every teen that rebels against their parents
Kill every child that curses against their parents
Kill teenagers who drink too much
Kill everyone who happens to be gay
Kill everyone who isn't a christian (plus the whole town)

99% of americans should be put to death if people would relly follow the bible. Thats what the bible says. Noone stick to it anymore so people could just as well skip the creationism story as well. Add evolution to it does not make much of a difference if you already skip loads from the bible like most people do.

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

I'm gonna jump in here and say most of those 'laws' applied only to the Jews in the Old Testament. In the New Testament when Jesus made the new covenant for his followers, he pretty much said 'live and let live'. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Turn the other cheek", etc.

[Vanito]

I'm gonna jump in here and say most of those 'laws' applied only to the Jews in the Old Testament. In the New Testament when Jesus made the new covenant for his followers, he pretty much said 'live and let live'. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; "Love thy neighbour as thyself", "Turn the other cheek", etc.
Most? Which are and which arent? And do you stick to those from the new testament?

[clockworkapple]

Truly following the bible:
Kill everyone who works on the sabbath day
Kill everyone who divorces or cheats.
Kill every woman who aint a virgin on her wedding night
Kill every teen that rebels against their parents
Kill every child that curses against their parents
Kill teenagers who drink too much
Kill everyone who happens to be gay
Kill everyone who isn't a christian (plus the whole town)

.

Not to mention it condemns tattoos, eating shellfish, wearing gold, American Football*, among many other things

" "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses..." (in reference to pigs)

[Vanito]

Not to mention it condemns tattoos, eating shellfish, wearing gold, American Football*, among many other things

" "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses..." (in reference to pigs)
Why is american football forbidden?

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

Most? Which are and which arent? And do you stick to those from the new testament?

Sorry, that should have been 'all' not most. The laws in the New Testament are very hard to stick to but I don't think they're impossible. Divorce is now likened to an abomination in God's eyes and I can't imagine myslef stuck with the same person for the rest of my life. If, for whatever reason, I do get a divorce it's forbidden to remarry too. How unfair.


The American football is made of pig's skin and you're not allowed to touch the carcass of a pig, as what clockworkapple was saying. Also, the Old Testament stated women were unclean during their periods and men could not touch them during that time. They were to be put out of the camps too I think. I think it had something to do with that law where you couldn't touch blood.

[Vanito]

Sorry, that should have been 'all' not most. The laws in the New Testament are very hard to stick to but I don't think they're impossible. Divorce is now likened to an abomination in God's eyes and I can't imagine myslef stuck with the same person for the rest of my life. If, for whatever reason, I do get a divorce it's forbidden to remarry too. How unfair.
Unfair or not, its your religion. If you cannot imagine you stick to things which you feel are unfair, why stop with that thing. Why not skip it all? Why skip evolution and not divorce. Where is the logic in that? I don't get it.

[simbalena]

"You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses..." (in reference to pigs)

No bacon? This time the bible has gone too far!

:cry:

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

Unfair or not, its your religion. If you cannot imagine you stick to things which you feel are unfair, why stop with that thing. Why not skip it all? Why skip evolution and not divorce. Where is the logic in that? I don't get it.

My religion? I'm not Christian anymore, although I used to be devout. I'm ecumenical, bordering on agnostic. Also, to your argument, I think that the government criminalizing marijuana with the other dangerous drugs is unfair but I still try to uphold the human law as best I can.

[iCad]

Unfair or not, its your religion. If you cannot imagine you stick to things which you feel are unfair, why stop with that thing. Why not skip it all? Why skip evolution and not divorce. Where is the logic in that? I don't get it.

Here's something that a lot of people miss about the Old Testament, specifically those books of it that are exhaustive lists of laws: It's really not a list of things that will send you to hell if you don't comply with them. Really. Without going into exhaustive detail, its purpose is twofold.

The more prosaic and non-spiritual one: The Hebrew culture was a small fledgling amidst rampaging giants. Egypt (Which was at the pinnacle of its power at the time that it's thought the majority of the OT was written). Assyria, fractured into smaller but still powerful states by Egypt; the Assyrians had some really nasty religious practices, like infant sacrifice. Babylonia. These were, even at the time, vastly ancient cultures, entrenched and very powerful. The Hebrews were as gnats to them, small and greatly outnumbered. As such, they needed a cultural identity to differentiate themselves from the surrounding ones AND they needed to feel like a culture at all in the face of the giants around them. A set of laws and a code of behavior will do that for a culture. Most of the OT laws that we in modern times view as nonsensical or even cruel -- like requiring victims of rape to marry their rapists -- were direct opposites of or that flew in the face of the laws of surrounding cultures. Oddly enough, the one about rapists marrying their victims was actually of very great benefit to raped women of the time. We don't see it that way now, of course, but our culture is most emphatically not remotely similar to any culture of the time. This is why an understanding of historical context is of critical importance when trying to understand anything in the Old Testament, especially.

On the more spiritual side...Well, the spiritual purpose of the OT laws is at heart that of atonement. The sacrifices described in the OT and compliance to the extent possible with the law were designed to atone for sins, both for the original sin of Adam and for the lesser sins that we all commit on a daily basis. This was needed until Jesus came along. His sacrifice was the one that ended the necessity of those described in the OT. Jesus was a substitute for all of us, in perpetuity. And, for us modern Christians, the OT laws are a constant reminder that we cannot earn God's love, only that we can accept His grace that is freely given to us, regardless of our transgressions. But, part of accepting grace (meaning, undeserved forgiveness) means admitting that we have done wrong, that we have sinned. That's hard for a lot of people to do.

So, all of that said, an argument like, "Well, if you think the Genesis creation allegories (for there are two and they do not agree in all particulars) are literally true, then why do you eat bacon?" makes no sense in the mind of a creationist/Biblical literalist. (And I would hope that my previous post would make it clear that I am neither of those, BTW.) Bear in mind that these people see Genesis as an accurate historical document, a true account of history. They will not be convinced otherwise, no matter what you say, because they sincerely believe that if Genesis isn't literally true, then the rest of the Bible becomes untrustworthy and that notion gives them the shivers. In other words, they lack faith. On the other hand, they see the Levitical laws as something else entirely. Genesis gives you history. Leviticus gives you a moral/behavioral code.

They are partly justified in this thinking, actually; the intent of the two books [i]is[i] quite clearly different. Bear in mind that the Bible is an anthology of books written for different reasons, by different authors, and in a few cases, some of the books are a thousand years, at least, newer than the oldest ones.

So, a person arguing against creationists with the kind of argument y'all are talking about, translated into modern-speak, would sound something like this: "Well, if Abraham Lincoln was the 15th US President, then why do you think it's OK to download music illegally from the Internet?" It makes no sense; one is an historical statement, the other talks about legality. It's a nonsensical argument that should be banished every bit as much as the creationists should abandon most of their "scientific" refutations of evolutionary theory and start working on supporting their own darn "theory," using the term in the vernacular sense, not the scientific one.

Now, even if the argument wasn't nonsense... As to which of the OT laws apply to Christians, the true answer is...none of them, really. Why? Because the Levitical laws are part of the covenant (meaning, a contract) between God and the ancient Hebrews. This covenant was fulfilled (meaning, ended) by Jesus. According to Jesus's words in Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Meaning, that the old covenant was in full effect until Jesus accomplished his sacrificial mission, at which point the covenant was fulfilled (again, meaning ended), and no covenant subsequently replaced it. Believers were to be guided by Jesus's teachings, as outlined in the New Testament and further clarified mostly by Paul. They were not bound by covenant to observe Old Testament law. Jesus's sacrifice freed believers in Him as the Son of God who died as atonement for their sins from that obligation. Which doesn't mean that it isn't still a reminder of what God expects of us, as I said; it just means that we're not expressly under that particular set of laws anymore.

The Hebrews were big on covenants, you see, as obsessive about them as the Egyptians were about writing darn near everything down. EVERYTHING in ancient Hebrew culture was regulated by covenants great and small, so it is no wonder that God related to the Hebrews in this way. God relates to people in ways that they will understand.

So...Can we get back to the real argument now? :)

[Sisaly]

The mind, it boggles.

[Vanito]

Here's something that a lot of people miss about the Old Testament, specifically those books of it that are exhaustive lists of laws: It's really not a list of things that will send you to hell if you don't comply with them. Really. Without going into exhaustive detail, its purpose is twofold.

The more prosaic and non-spiritual one: The Hebrew culture was a small fledgling amidst rampaging giants. Egypt (Which was at the pinnacle of its power at the time that it's thought the majority of the OT was written). Assyria, fractured into smaller but still powerful states by Egypt; the Assyrians had some really nasty religious practices, like infant sacrifice. Babylonia. These were, even at the time, vastly ancient cultures, entrenched and very powerful. The Hebrews were as gnats to them, small and greatly outnumbered. As such, they needed a cultural identity to differentiate themselves from the surrounding ones AND they needed to feel like a culture at all in the face of the giants around them. A set of laws and a code of behavior will do that for a culture. Most of the OT laws that we in modern times view as nonsensical or even cruel -- like requiring victims of rape to marry their rapists -- were direct opposites of or that flew in the face of the laws of surrounding cultures. Oddly enough, the one about rapists marrying their victims was actually of very great benefit to raped women of the time. We don't see it that way now, of course, but our culture is most emphatically not remotely similar to any culture of the time. This is why an understanding of historical context is of critical importance when trying to understand anything in the Old Testament, especially.

On the more spiritual side...Well, the spiritual purpose of the OT laws is at heart that of atonement. The sacrifices described in the OT and compliance to the extent possible with the law were designed to atone for sins, both for the original sin of Adam and for the lesser sins that we all commit on a daily basis. This was needed until Jesus came along. His sacrifice was the one that ended the necessity of those described in the OT. Jesus was a substitute for all of us, in perpetuity. And, for us modern Christians, the OT laws are a constant reminder that we cannot earn God's love, only that we can accept His grace that is freely given to us, regardless of our transgressions. But, part of accepting grace (meaning, undeserved forgiveness) means admitting that we have done wrong, that we have sinned. That's hard for a lot of people to do.

So, all of that said, an argument like, "Well, if you think the Genesis creation allegories (for there are two and they do not agree in all particulars) are literally true, then why do you eat bacon?" makes no sense in the mind of a creationist/Biblical literalist. (And I would hope that my previous post would make it clear that I am neither of those, BTW.) Bear in mind that these people see Genesis as an accurate historical document, a true account of history. They will not be convinced otherwise, no matter what you say, because they sincerely believe that if Genesis isn't literally true, then the rest of the Bible becomes untrustworthy and that notion gives them the shivers. In other words, they lack faith. On the other hand, they see the Levitical laws as something else entirely. Genesis gives you history. Leviticus gives you a moral/behavioral code.

They are partly justified in this thinking, actually; the intent of the two books [i]is[i] quite clearly different. Bear in mind that the Bible is an anthology of books written for different reasons, by different authors, and in a few cases, some of the books are a thousand years, at least, newer than the oldest ones.

So, a person arguing against creationists with the kind of argument y'all are talking about, translated into modern-speak, would sound something like this: "Well, if Abraham Lincoln was the 15th US President, then why do you think it's OK to download music illegally from the Internet?" It makes no sense; one is an historical statement, the other talks about legality. It's a nonsensical argument that should be banished every bit as much as the creationists should abandon most of their "scientific" refutations of evolutionary theory and start working on supporting their own darn "theory," using the term in the vernacular sense, not the scientific one.

Now, even if the argument wasn't nonsense... As to which of the OT laws apply to Christians, the true answer is...none of them, really. Why? Because the Levitical laws are part of the covenant (meaning, a contract) between God and the ancient Hebrews. This covenant was fulfilled (meaning, ended) by Jesus. According to Jesus's words in Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Meaning, that the old covenant was in full effect until Jesus accomplished his sacrificial mission, at which point the covenant was fulfilled (again, meaning ended), and no covenant subsequently replaced it. Believers were to be guided by Jesus's teachings, as outlined in the New Testament and further clarified mostly by Paul. They were not bound by covenant to observe Old Testament law. Jesus's sacrifice freed believers in Him as the Son of God who died as atonement for their sins from that obligation. Which doesn't mean that it isn't still a reminder of what God expects of us, as I said; it just means that we're not expressly under that particular set of laws anymore.

The Hebrews were big on covenants, you see, as obsessive about them as the Egyptians were about writing darn near everything down. EVERYTHING in ancient Hebrew culture was regulated by covenants great and small, so it is no wonder that God related to the Hebrews in this way. God relates to people in ways that they will understand.

So...Can we get back to the real argument now? :)

I am referring here to her thinking about the no divorce law in the NEW testament beeing unfair. If she would have been a christian that still would have applied. Even if you dont follow the old testament the new new testament is still against divorce.
Religious people divorce like shit in the USA but still have the hypocricy of condemning others for other things.

[iCad]

I am referring here to her thinking about the no divorce law in the NEW testament beeing unfair. If she would have been a christian that still would have applied. Even if you dont follow the old testament the new new testament is still against divorce.
Religious people divorce like shit in the USA but still have the hypocricy of condemning others for other things.

Yes they do. Because they're people. And people are not perfect.

But again you're making the same argument: Lumping history and law together. To understand the mind of a creationist, you have to keep in mind that the two are different. Like I said, it's like saying, "If Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1952, then why do you think it's OK kill people?" The first is an historical statement, the second an issue of law.

I mean, I understand what you're getting at: You're trying to catch them in their literalism. I'm just saying it won't work because they've already deflected this argument by labeling part of the Bible as history, parts as law, parts as poetry, etc. I'm just saying you need a better kind of argument.

[Vanito]

Yes they do. Because they're people. And people are not perfect.
But again you're making the same argument: Lumping history and law together. To understand the mind of a creationist, you have to keep in mind that the two are different. Like I said, it's like saying, "If Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1952, then why do you think it's OK kill people?" The first is an historical statement, the second an issue of law.
I mean, I understand what you're getting at: You're trying to catch them in their literalism. I'm just saying it won't work because they've already deflected this argument by labeling part of the Bible as history, parts as law, parts as poetry, etc. I'm just saying you need a better kind of argument.
I understand most creationists are not up for logic in wether the bible is true since they are not open for arguments on that. That does not mean I cannot ask them how they came to that unlogic or they can look at themselves in the mirror and feel good about themselves if they are having a very hypocritical point of view. They all have different reasons for how they are, and some do not have a hypocritical point of view. Those reasons are interesting. Its what makes one christian different from another. Your reasons are not another christians reason, you just have one opinion.
Anyway since the topic of this thread is evolution what do you think about evolution?

[clockworkapple]

Why is american football forbidden?

sorry to drag up old stuff but the balls used are traditionally covered in pig bladders

[davious]

Footballs are made of a rubber bladder, then covered with either a leather or rubber "skin". Leather balls are used by the NFL and NCAA, the rubber skinned ones are only for home use. The term pigskin originates from medieval times, in Europe, with a game that very loosely resembled rugby, where it actually was a pigs bladder, and various games have used balls made of them, however, American footballs were made of vulcanized rubber and leather almost since its inception. They are not, repeat NOT made of pig skins.

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

Footballs are made of a rubber bladder, then covered with either a leather or rubber "skin". Leather balls are used by the NFL and NCAA, the rubber skinned ones are only for home use. The term pigskin originates from medieval times, in Europe, with a game that very loosely resembled rugby, where it actually was a pigs bladder, and various games have used balls made of them, however, American footballs were made of vulcanized rubber and leather almost since its inception. They are not, repeat NOT made of pig skins.

Man, I'm gonna kill my bastard friend. (I hate sports, he's the sports expert and he told me they were made of that. 'Why do you think they call them 'pig-skins'?' he said. He was probably playing on my gullibility but I think this is a case where justifiable homicide is warranted.)

Thanks for clearing that up.

[davious]

its just a case where the nickname took on too much power. Again, there were balls made of pig skin for various rugby type games since medieval times (rugby is clearly the ancestor of American football), and they were continued to be made from pig skin/bladders, whatever you want to call them until the technique to vulcanize rubber came along...so, the nickname was originally accurate, it just stuck around well after they changed manufacturing materials. Your friend wasn't completely wrong, his information was just outdated by 130+ years.

[jhd1189]

I'm seeing very little about evolution here, guys... let's try to get back on topic.

[Simz4ever-Georgia]

I guess it depends what you believe. Everyone thinks differently about things so to some people it may be a myth but others it could be what they believe in.

Georgia

[Splurgy]

Yes they do. Because they're people. And people are not perfect.

But again you're making the same argument: Lumping history and law together. To understand the mind of a creationist, you have to keep in mind that the two are different. Like I said, it's like saying, "If Queen Elizabeth was crowned in 1952, then why do you think it's OK kill people?" The first is an historical statement, the second an issue of law.

I mean, I understand what you're getting at: You're trying to catch them in their literalism. I'm just saying it won't work because they've already deflected this argument by labeling part of the Bible as history, parts as law, parts as poetry, etc. I'm just saying you need a better kind of argument.
But if you're conceding that the laws part of the Bible was made up by people at the time (I think you are - surely if God had written then and then seen it was now ok to change them, he'd have sent a memo down?) then surely you have to accept that maybe the whole of Genisis was written to answer questions raised by historical people who probably couldn't grasp the concept of evolution if they tried?

[davious]

Splurgy, that is exactly why I cannot support the 24/7 creation as literal. I have long maintained that Genesis is a poetic story of creation, not a literal factual account. Neither the Bible, nor any book contained within it, was ever meant to be used as a science textbook. How do you explain what millions and millions of years are to a people whose biggest technological advance was making weapons out of bronze and iron? The original audience for Genesis had no accurate concepts of astronomy, physics, or anything like that, they simply would be incapable of comprehending it.

Thus,Genesis uses poetic language and structure, and takes liberties with creation. (How can you have days before the Earth was solid, and before the sun was created? Isn't the very definition of a day, the amount of time it takes the physically solid Earth to rotate once completely in its orbit around the already created sun?)

repeat: THE BIBLE IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK. Do not treat it as such.

[iCad]

But if you're conceding that the laws part of the Bible was made up by people at the time (I think you are - surely if God had written then and then seen it was now ok to change them, he'd have sent a memo down?) then surely you have to accept that maybe the whole of Genisis was written to answer questions raised by historical people who probably couldn't grasp the concept of evolution if they tried?

No, they were not just arbitrarily made up by people. But they are part of a contract between God and the ancient Hebrews, as I said. That contract was fulfilled by Jesus and does not apply to Christians in the sense that that contract has been replaced by following the teachings of Jesus. Which, in some cases, are not the same as the laws contained in Leviticus. The spirit and the motivation behind them are most certainly different.

So, the law can and does change. It went through a big change upon Jesus's sacrificial death. But regardless of what laws do, history doesn't change. (Unless science fiction is involved. ;) ) And Genesis, to a creationist, is history. Not allegory. Not metaphor. And certainly not law. A creationist's answer to the type of argument being presented is that he/she eats bacon because not eating certain foods was part of the old covenant fulfilled by Jesus and is no longer binding upon Christians. But Genesis is still history.

That's why I'm saying it isn't a good argument to use with creationists. It's not that it isn't a good argument to challenge their literalism. I'm just saying that it won't have the devastating effect that you think it will have. A better question to ask is something along the lines of, "OK. So, you think that change can only happen within a kind. So, what is a kind, then? And can you point me at the DNA assays that have been done to demonstrate this impenetrable and unchangeable barrier between kinds?" (Hint: They have answers for neither of the above questions.)

In other words, attack their "scientific theory," not their theology. Their theological defenses are strong, even if they're proceeding from bad theology. Their scientific defenses are thin as rice paper, however. It's a much better place to aim, is all I'm sayin'. :)

[Vanito]

Splurgy, that is exactly why I cannot support the 24/7 creation as literal. I have long maintained that Genesis is a poetic story of creation, not a literal factual account. Neither the Bible, nor any book contained within it, was ever meant to be used as a science textbook. How do you explain what millions and millions of years are to a people whose biggest technological advance was making weapons out of bronze and iron? The original audience for Genesis had no accurate concepts of astronomy, physics, or anything like that, they simply would be incapable of comprehending it.

Thus,Genesis uses poetic language and structure, and takes liberties with creation. (How can you have days before the Earth was solid, and before the sun was created? Isn't the very definition of a day, the amount of time it takes the physically solid Earth to rotate once completely in its orbit around the already created sun?)

repeat: THE BIBLE IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK. Do not treat it as such.
Christians vary on their opinion of that, as you can see here. If you want to bring that point across try a discussion with one who disagrees with you with arguments.

No, they were not just arbitrarily made up by people. But they are part of a contract between God and the ancient Hebrews, as I said. That contract was fulfilled by Jesus and does not apply to Christians in the sense that that contract has been replaced by following the teachings of Jesus. Which, in some cases, are not the same as the laws contained in Leviticus. The spirit and the motivation behind them are most certainly different.

So, the law can and does change. It went through a big change upon Jesus's sacrificial death. But regardless of what laws do, history doesn't change. (Unless science fiction is involved. ;) ) And Genesis, to a creationist, is history. Not allegory. Not metaphor. And certainly not law. A creationist's answer to the type of argument being presented is that he/she eats bacon because not eating certain foods was part of the old covenant fulfilled by Jesus and is no longer binding upon Christians. But Genesis is still history.

That's why I'm saying it isn't a good argument to use with creationists. It's not that it isn't a good argument to challenge their literalism. I'm just saying that it won't have the devastating effect that you think it will have. A better question to ask is something along the lines of, "OK. So, you think that change can only happen within a kind. So, what is a kind, then? And can you point me at the DNA assays that have been done to demonstrate this impenetrable and unchangeable barrier between kinds?" (Hint: They have answers for neither of the above questions.)

In other words, attack their "scientific theory," not their theology. Their theological defenses are strong, even if they're proceeding from bad theology. Their scientific defenses are thin as rice paper, however. It's a much better place to aim, is all I'm sayin'. :)
You have NO answers to any of why religion is true. None. You just assume it and claim its true without any evidence. What are your reasons to assume ancient christian scripts are true, but not egyptian ones? And why not modern evolution?

Furthermore if you want answers to scientific questions, use definitions that make sense in science. "kinds" are a religious concept, not a scientific concept, scientifically "kinds" are undefined as a class. It makes no sense to answer a questions about somthing undefined. If you want to discuss science, stick to defined concepts, like race, species, subspecies etc. To discuss god people will have to assume in replies there is something like god, to discuss science you will have to use definitions which make sense in science.

[davious]

I used to be a 24/7 creationist, until I went to college. Cured me of that, wicked fast. My astronomy professor wrote a controversial book in 1986 called "The Fourth Day", reconciling evolution and the big bang (both at the same time, I know! amazing!) with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, and it blew me away, and resonated with me.

[iCad]

You have NO answers to any of why religion is true. None. You just assume it and claim its true without any evidence. What are your reasons to assume ancient christian scripts are true, but not egyptian ones? And why not modern evolution?

Er...uh... you realize I'm not a creationist, either young-earth or old-earth/day-age right? I'm an "evolutionist." I'm not even a "theistic evolutionist." I believe God created our souls, the thing that is in His image, not our bodies, which clearly are not. I believe that the first 6-or-so chapters of Genesis have deep spiritual meaning steeped in a beautiful allegory, indeed, but not any historical accuracy whatsoever, nor were they meant to be historical texts, much less scientific ones.

Clear now? :) I think we have a bit of language issue here, maybe?

Furthermore if you want answers to scientific questions, use definitions that make sense in science. "kinds" are a religious concept, not a scientific concept, scientifically "kinds" are undefined as a class. It makes no sense to answer a questions about somthing undefined. If you want to discuss science, stick to defined concepts, like race, species, subspecies etc. To discuss god people will have to assume in replies there is something like god, to discuss science you will have to use definitions which make sense in science.

I was offering up a reason why a certain kind argument often used against creationists doesn't work against creationists and then suggested a better angle of attack to use. Because I argue with creationists all the time, you see. I live with one, even, and we agree to disagree on the subject. :) "Kinds" are indeed undefined; that's why asking creationists to define them is a good way to send them packing. Often, the answer they'll come back with is that kinds are defined by genes in some nebulous way. So then the answer to that is: Where are your DNA assay results? Which, of course, they don't have, if they even know what such things are.

In other words, attack their "science" because it is their weakest point. The, "Well, why do you eat bacon?" line of attack is meaningless and easily deflected, at least to the satisfaction of the creationist in the argument.

[Mistermook]

I used to be a 24/7 creationist, until I went to college. Cured me of that, wicked fast. My astronomy professor wrote a controversial book in 1986 called "The Fourth Day", reconciling evolution and the big bang (both at the same time, I know! amazing!) with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, and it blew me away, and resonated with me.
Now we just need to educate you the rest of the way! Can't leave the job half finished, can we? :D

[Vanito]

Er...uh... you realize I'm not a creationist, either young-earth or old-earth/day-age right? I'm an "evolutionist." I'm not even a "theistic evolutionist." I believe God created our souls, the thing that is in His image, not our bodies, which clearly are not. I believe that the first 6-or-so chapters of Genesis have deep spiritual meaning steeped in a beautiful allegory, indeed, but not any historical accuracy whatsoever, nor were they meant to be historical texts, much less scientific ones.
Why do you think he created so many species before he came to humans? What are your reasons for that?

I was offering up a reason why a certain kind argument often used against creationists doesn't work against creationists and then suggested a better angle of attack to use. Because I argue with creationists all the time, you see. I live with one, even, and we agree to disagree on the subject. :) "Kinds" are indeed undefined; that's why asking creationists to define them is a good way to send them packing. Often, the answer they'll come back with is that kinds are defined by genes in some nebulous way. So then the answer to that is: Where are your DNA assay results? Which, of course, they don't have, if they even know what such things are.
I do not have the illusion many creationists can be "converted". They need to have some sense of logic and some knowlegde to understand the alternative. When they do not grasp that, its useless to try to "convert" them, people stick to the best alternative that they can understand.

As for religious evolutionists, it often is useless to convert them to atheism too. Some people WANT to believe. If people pick a 2000 year old story and take it for true or world conquesting meaningfull, no logical questions asked, its their business.

In all cases its interesting to see how people come to that reasoning. Thats the most interesting part. Trying to let them see unlogic is interesting, but I do not hold the unreasonable ideal they CAN be converted. Nor can you convert me, or you the other which you disagree with.

Religion does not make people less responsible for what they cause. If they cause shit, they are responsible. And can be pointed to their responsability or cruelty. If they think their morals are "better", they get to see the other side. If they have enough ego or unlogic they will always think they are right. Thats the annoying part of religion. "Its not MY opinions its gods opinion - so I have every right to keep pushing it in your face - AND you are arrogant because you think you are better than god" - Gods opinion is different in every christian, and commonly the same as their opinion. Those are the most arrogant religious people. And often the least responsible ones for their actions.

In other words, attack their "science" because it is their weakest point. The, "Well, why do you eat bacon?" line of attack is meaningless and easily deflected, at least to the satisfaction of the creationist in the argument.
The most interesting is how they deflect it. Or why they stick to things that may hurt them. Christians vary a lot in their "why".
If they do nothing, no problem.
If they are hypocrites and judge others by standards they do not keep up to, I will point it out to them. If they get pissed when I point it out, well then they never should have started pushing their shit in my face in the first place. Here its a good place to have a discussion, because people are up for a discussion, real life christians can be dang annoying.

[Neerie]

I forgot the most important thing, Evolution is survival of the fittest, so if we came from monkeys, why are they still here?

That's called common ancestor: aka, both the current apes and us are descendents of one same specie of ancient ape. Imagine a tree, at the top of the branches are all the current life forms, and at the bottom the common ancestor.

[DrMrSims]

No, just confused, because you see, what eveloution does, it cancels out the Bible, evolution says that we have evolved from single celled beings, whereas, the Bible says we have been formed by God, and He breathed the breath of life into us. Two different things.

Religion and Science complement each other because Religion answers why we were created and Science answers how we were created.

Who knows, God might be the designer of Evolution.

It doesn't contradict...

The Bible is not a history book or a science book. Because it doesn't answer how.

A science book doesn't answer why.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Who knows, God might be the designer of Evolution.

or visa versa.

who has indisputable proof that god came along before us? its a lot like the " which came first: the chicken, or the egg? " question.
we couldve very easily designed god ourselves.

[Zeth]

Sorry, that should have been 'all' not most. The laws in the New Testament are very hard to stick to but I don't think they're impossible.


There are only two laws in the New Testament: Love God, Love people.

Logically, I know, there are more, but you can sum them up under these two. Such as, if you love people, you won't murder someone ect. ect.

[Vanito]

There are only two laws in the New Testament: Love God, Love people.

Logically, I know, there are more, but you can sum them up under these two. Such as, if you love people, you won't murder someone ect. ect.

There are more. Like cut your hand off or cut out your eye when they make you sin. New testament has its strange rules too.

[DrMrSims]

There are more. Like cut your hand off or cut out your eye when they make you sin. New testament has its strange rules too.

Don't take it too literally. ;)

[CuddlesdaTeddlyBear]

Don't take it too literally. ;)

Yeah, that usually is the crux of the argument most non-believers make. 'How do you know which parts of the Bible to take literally or figuratively'?

With evolution, the theory changes based on new evidence scientists discover, with the Bible the 'evidence' is already there but changes only when someone interprets it differently.

[iCad]

Why do you think he created so many species before he came to humans? What are your reasons for that?

Personally? I don't think he did. I'm not a literalist, you see. I believe that God created and imbued us with our souls, the part of us that is in His image and the part of us that will return to Him, should we choose to do so. I do not believe that He created our bodies, which are clearly not in His image, flawed and badly-engineered as they are. I could go into why I believe this, and why it's compatible with the Bible, as I've put a lot of thought and extensive research into it, but you probably don't care. :)

I do not have the illusion many creationists can be "converted". They need to have some sense of logic and some knowlegde to understand the alternative. When they do not grasp that, its useless to try to "convert" them, people stick to the best alternative that they can understand...

Speaking just about me, personally: I argue with creationists with no intention of "converting" them. In many cases, it will not happen, and I am fully aware of this. Mostly, young-Earth creationists in particular are Biblical literalists, and that attitude causes them to believe that if Genesis is not an accurate, literal history, then none of the Bible is true and they would rather die before having to believe that. They are extremists that way. All or nothing. It is, in my opinion, not the proper attitude to have toward the Bible, but I do not feel a great need to disabuse them of their beliefs.

In any case, literalists tend not to understand the concept of context, much less of poetic language, of allowing the Bible (and, by extension, God) to speak in allegorical ways that would have been very meaningful to the text's then-contemporary audience and that can still be just as meaningful to a reader/believer now. They simply think that allegory = not true and that leads them back to the idea that if Genesis isn't "true" then the whole Bible can't be "true," either. And, like I said, that's their greatest fear. Because, in general, they have no faith.

So, it's not a question of "conversion" because that's not going to happen. It really is a case of asking them to refine their own "theory." The problem, of course, is that they have no idea how to create and support their own theory, really. If they did, they would at least define their terms, like the whole "kind" thing. Rather, they believe that if they can simply "disprove evolution" then, automatically and by default, creationism will be accepted as "right." That's a false dichotomy, of course. In theory, neither could be right. Theoretically (though not bloody likely), the truth might be something completely different than either explanation. Like, we really all were created by my cat last Thursday, and all this history we think we have was just implanted into our minds. ;)

Oh, and by the way? You don't have to be an atheist to accept that evolutionary theory is true, whether you believe that God "used" it or not. In the case of Christianity, the official stance of the Catholic church and of most Protestant churches is theistic evolution, God using evolution for His own ends, essentially. That's not what I believe, personally, but it is a valid belief, one that, in my experience, many people hold quite well.

[Vanito]

Personally? I don't think he did. I'm not a literalist, you see. I believe that God created and imbued us with our souls, the part of us that is in His image and the part of us that will return to Him, should we choose to do so. I do not believe that He created our bodies, which are clearly not in His image, flawed and badly-engineered as they are. I could go into why I believe this, and why it's compatible with the Bible, as I've put a lot of thought and extensive research into it, but you probably don't care. :)
I am always up to hear new ideas, even though they are not always mine.

So, it's not a question of "conversion" because that's not going to happen. It really is a case of asking them to refine their own "theory." The problem, of course, is that they have no idea how to create and support their own theory, really. If they did, they would at least define their terms, like the whole "kind" thing. Rather, they believe that if they can simply "disprove evolution" then, automatically and by default, creationism will be accepted as "right." That's a false dichotomy, of course. In theory, neither could be right. Theoretically (though not bloody likely), the truth might be something completely different than either explanation. Like, we really all were created by my cat last Thursday, and all this history we think we have was just implanted into our minds. ;)
No my goldfish did it ;)

Oh, and by the way? You don't have to be an atheist to accept that evolutionary theory is true, whether you believe that God "used" it or not. In the case of Christianity, the official stance of the Catholic church and of most Protestant churches is theistic evolution, God using evolution for His own ends, essentially. That's not what I believe, personally, but it is a valid belief, one that, in my experience, many people hold quite well.
Its the idea of the normal catholic church in holland too. Most christians do not seem to believe in any evolution though since they don't know much about it. And we have a very small group of fundamentalists, who go for creationism ONLY by the church as well.

[iCad]

I am always up to hear new ideas, even though they are not always mine.

Well, I don't have the time to write it all down now, unfortunately; it'd be a summation of quite a bit of work on my part. But perhaps I will do so. Maybe PM it to you, so as not to clog up the thread with irrelevant info. :)


No my goldfish did it ;)

Whaaaaat?! You think a mere fish could create all of this complexity you see around you? Clearly, this is the work of a cat. ;)

Its the idea of the normal catholic church in holland too. Most christians do not seem to believe in any evolution though since they don't know much about it. And we have a very small group of fundamentalists, who go for creationism ONLY by the church as well.

Actually, most Christians (if you're speaking of all of them, not just the more fundamentalist amongst us), do not believe that creationism is true. The fundamentalist branches, believe it or not, are MUCH smaller than the mainstream ones. It's just that your average fundamentalist is about 20,000 times louder than your average mainstream Christian. So, the noise that the fundamentalist churches make is quite loud, indeed, but they are still in the minority. In fact, not even all people of a more fundamentalist bent (like, for instance, me) believe that creationism is true. But our voices, especially, are greatly drowned out. I can certainly understand your perception that there aren't many Christians who accept evolutionary theory, but that isn't really the case. It's true that not many fundamentalists do, but the fundamentalists are in the minority. Don't confuse them with Christians in general.

[Tempscire]

Actually, most Christians (if you're speaking of all of them, not just the more fundamentalist amongst us), do not believe that creationism is true.

It's still a pretty big minority. This is hardly "that one nutcase and his brainwashed devotees" territory.

Among weekly churchgoers, 24 percent believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion. (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution.html)

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005...79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven...Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory... (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2922875820071129)

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html)