Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

"Or it can mean the first meaning... "

Give me a break. Anyone can se that the plain reading is going to the top of the mountain to see the kingdoms. YOu have greatly twisted that to support your alternate interpretation.

"Or, I could consult the Bible... the word of God... instead of the word of man. You re-affirm over and over you would rather believe the word of man over the word of God. "

Give me a break. Picking up a textbook to see what the ancient Jews thought there world looks like is putting man over the word of God. You have got to be kidding. Anyone who would do so would see that the flat earth surrounded by the waters of the deep with a dome over the top is what they believed. And the plain reading of scripture supports this.

"Your reverence of the word of man over the Word of God is again appearant. "

Give me a break. I was pointing out that men of God have considered the Creation non-literal since before any old earth theories came on the scene. That in no way is putting the words of man over the words of God. Or have you never read a Bible commentary?

"Once you change your position from believing scripture to be a fairy tale to being inspired absolute truth, we can then discuss the physical evidence."

Give me a break. At no time have I said anything of the sort. Do you honestly think I would be sitting here discussing this with you if I thought the Bible was a bunch of fairy tails. That has got to be the most biggest bunch of demagoguery I have heard in a long time. I cannot believe you feel the need to resort to such ridiculous staements.

"Once you change your position from believing scripture to be a fairy tale to being inspired absolute truth, we can then discuss the physical evidence."

You have shown absolutely no interest in addressing the overwhelming physical evidence against you. Instead you misrepresent my position and accuse me falsely.

"Clearly, UTE, you seriously do not believe that the Bible is true as written. You believe, as you have stated, that they wrote according to their worldview which was a "little off" and that you didn't think God considered giving us the truth."

I think people know my oppinion by now. I do not believe God considered important to enlighten us in such things through His Word.

"Robert Boyle, a pioneer in atomic theory, chemistry, and gas dynamics was a young earth creationist"

Typical of the twisting done in the name of YEC. How many years before Darwin did he live? What would be the chances that he would be an old earther beforethe advent of modern geology and biology. And thing to prove a point, eh?

"When you come to the realization that the Bible is absolute truth - not a fairy tale - let me know and we'll have a fun discussion of the evidences in the physical world."

More slander. I disagree with you and that means I think the Bible is a fairy tale. You have got to be kidding.

 

Gup, I'm glad you're back. Rather than make a really long post, I'm going to zero in on one thing that I think is at the heart of the matter: biblical interpretation. I considered not posting this since I'm going camping for most of next week (weather permitting), but I will anyway. That gives you lots of time to respond, if you wish.

This is a lovely example of how you interpret Scripture differently than I do -- perhaps an even better example than Romans 5 or Genesis 1. According to you, when the first verse says "Answer not a fool according to his folly...", it actually means "Answer not a fool initially according to his folly...". When the second verse says "Answer a fool according to his folly...", it actually means "If he refuses to accept the truth, answer a fool according to his folly...". You've apparently decided that the passage should be read as meaning something a bit different than what it says, and now it seems that whenever you read it, you see your interpretation rather than the words that are actually there.

No doubt, you've come to your interpretation in order to remove the apparent contradiction between the verses. However, in the process of ironing out the contradiction, you've lost sight of the fact that your interpretation is not Scripture! Even if I accept the possibility that your interpretation may be correct, that does not mean it must be correct. Your interpretation is not inspired in the same way as the text is inspired. Neither is mine, but then I don't claim that my interpretations are the only possible ones -- they are just what I feel is most likely, based on the evidence I've examined.

Here's my interpretation. These two verses are back-to-back, so obviously the compiler of Proverbs noticed what they said and did not feel it was an error to include them both. The verses do offer contradictory advice for the same general situation (obviously, I do not agree with your attempt to twist the situations so they are not the same). Whenever I'm in such a situation, I keep both proverbs in mind. There are cases where each proverb is most applicable. They are proverbs, after all, and not absolute rules, and there is no need for all proverbs addressing the same situation to give identical guidance. When read with the genre of wisdom literature in mind, the advice is no more contradictory than Ecclesiastes 3:1-8: "...A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace." Similarly, there is a time to answer a fool according to his folly, and a time not to. There's no need to massage the words into saying something else. We can look at the context, genre and historical background of the passage and realize it makes perfect sense exactly as it's written.

If you could accept that your interpretation of these verses (the last two sentences of yours that I quoted at the top of this post) is not equivalent to what these verses say, and is not inspired or infallible, then you'd be well on your way to understanding how other Christians who take the Bible seriously can disagree with you on other matters, including the genre and purpose of the early chapters of Genesis.

This statement is also disturbing. You are advocating the same approach to the Bible as Muslims have to the Quran. Even though Mohammed was illiterate, they claim, he was able to write down God's exact words. That's not the standard Christian position. Christians generally believe the Bible comes from a partnership between humans and God. Certainly God could have etched his entire word for us in stone tablets with no human intervention, but that is not what he chose to do. The Bible is written by humans under inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The same way it is wrong to stress Jesus' divinity in such a way that his humanness is diminished, so too it is a mistake to stress the Bible's inspired origins to the point that the human authors become mere secretaries. Such a view also creates major problems for interpreting the Bible, since then it is much harder to explain the severe differences between the Greek in Mark and Hebrews, or differences in word usage, or other details that show the result of multiple very human authors. While the entire Bible is inspired by God, it was not dictated by God.

Now, since we both take the Bible seriously (I don't think there's anybody in this thread who doesn't), and since we're both more interested in studying the Bible than arguing science, why not address some of the issues I've raised earlier? Don't just call my questions foolish and then quote a proverb to dismiss me. A good start would be my last post to you at the top of page 10 of this thread, which you never responded to as far as I can tell. I'd like to see your approach to Psalm 104, or your response to what I said about Romans 5. Earlier today you said you were shocked when UTEOTW answered one of your questions directly. Why not shock me?

 

Nope. I can't prove the details of electricity from the Bible either, but I don't discount it because of that.

My interpretation of Psalm 104 and Romans 5 is not dependent on evolution or any other scientific theory. It's simply what I believe a plain yet careful reading of the text indicates. If you disagree, why not show where my interpretation goes wrong?

 

I can't prove from the Bible that monkeys wont fly outta my butt, but I don't discount it either.


what a ridiculous argument...

 

"When you come to the realization that the Bible is absolute truth - not a fairy tale - let me know and we'll have a fun discussion of the evidences in the physical world. "

This cannot be possibly true. You leave no doubt that as long as I disagree with your opinion on whether the Creation account is literal or not that this mean that I think the whole Bible is a "fairy tale." It is such a cheap shot to label those with whom you disagree as some heretic against God. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, it is so effective. That's why it keeps happening in all sorts of debates. (See how many people are being labeled "unpatriotic" in current political debates.)

The only discussion you want would go something like...

The fossil record...

Yep, all made during the flood.

There cannot be any transitionals...

Yep. Is it amazing how God used the Flood to sort those similar creatures into subsequent layers.

I know. Even managed to put all those marsupial fossils in Australia knowing the other marsupials would settle there later.

Yep. Amazing foresight. What about those psuedogenes and shared mutations?

We all know those MUST have some purpose. We just do not know what they are yet.

Yep. People are so stupid. And we all know that Adam must have been infected with thousands and thousands of retrovirii. Poor guy.

Yep. We know because that is the only way for all the humans to share the same set of LTRs. I guess you get what you pay for. But why again are these shared with the apes?

We are not smart enough to know, remmeber?

Oh yeah. Another amazing thing. Look at how the flood layers managed to be sorted in a manner consistent with the ratios of radioisotopes.

Yeah. Something else we are incapable of understanding. Like I don't know why Neanderthals had DNA distinct from that of humans. Doesn't that mean they were not humans?

No no. Remember, we hypothesize that the brow ridges, low foreheads and low braincase were caused by rickets. We might as well say that the rickets changed their DNA too.

I see that.

 

Indeed, that would be ridiculous. In the case I mentioned, there is overwhelming evidence in creation for the existence of electricity, and that is why accepting electricity isn't as ridiculous as your example.

 

Sad but true.

Even worse - is that evolution must rely upon "junk science" to make its case "in the obscure" when no making it "in the absurd".

Dawkings was right about one thing - it is a long walk "up mount IMPROBABLE" for those faithful believers in the doctrines of evolutionism.

Better to stick with the Word of God.

Better to avoid junk-science.

Better to stick with PROVEN science.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"When you make up reasons to dismiss portions of scripture..."

Who are you accusing of doing this?

As I have pointed out, it would be very easy for you to visit your local library or even Google and see that the ancient Jews believed in a flat earth surrounded by the "deep" with a dome overhead. When you read the Bible, you will see that the writers worldview agrees with this. You say that is taking Man's word over God's. Now you will not deny that this is what they thought. You cannot even object to it specifically because then you call attention that you are the one to make up reasons to ignore this.

I have never said that these people were off. Look closely at what I said. Their knowledge of the world was limited and they wrote how they saw things. So what? God gave them a revelation of Himself that they understood according to what they "knew" about the world. This seems to be a very smart thing to do, IMHO. He taught them the truths they needed to know. There are many cases of this in the New Testament. Have you ever read any of the parables? I think those contain a lot of truth.

"When you make up reasons to dismiss portions of scripture, you have taken the greatest step towards dismissing the rest of the Bible... mainly that Jesus guy ... heck... why should we believe in that Jesus guy? Isn't he from that book proven a fairy tale by 'real science'?"

Please quit attributing the slanderous term "fairy tale" to me. How many times do I have to remind you that if I did not believe the Bible, I would not be here? Why would I be a Christian if I did not believe in the virgin birth, Christ's death and ressurrection and so on?

Besides, you never addressed the post. You said "When you come to the realization that the Bible is absolute truth - not a fairy tale - let me know and we'll have a fun discussion of the evidences in the physical world." But, you make it plain that as long as I disagree with your interpretation you will accuse me of thinking of the Bible as nothing but "fairy tales." You never gave an indication of what conditions you would accept as a prerequisite for having such a discussion. I think that the prerequisite is that I agree with you beforehand. You did not deny it. Or is there some other way in which would could disagree with the facts in question and that you would quit slandering me with the "fairy tale" bit? Because as long as we disagree about the facts, we are going to disagree with the interpretation.

You continue to use the tactic of slandering me, misrepresenting my views, and using the fallacy of the slippery slope. You have no real interest in examining the data at all.

"In fact, I have recently seen a statistic that only 4% of those graduating from Public High Schools believe Jesus was a real person. "

I will have to ask for a reference.

 

So why not give it a try? I've been focusing on one point of YEC: whether there could be animal death before the fall. Show how your reading of Psalm 104 is superior to mine. Show how my interpretation of Romans 5 is flawed.

Here's the post where I discuss our differing views of Romans 5.
Here's the one about Psalm 104.

Sure, you can continue to just assert that you're right and I'm wrong. But why not delve into these passages instead and see if they support your position?

 

Gup20 said --
Yet I can use the Bible and scirpture to back up young earth creation 100%. You have ZERO Biblical evidence of evolution, I have 100% creation evidence from the Bible. Moreover, all the physical evidence can be seen to support young creation as well... so YEC has both Biblical and physical evidence, whereas evolution has ONLY physical evidence.... and that only supports evolution if you don't believe the Bible is true.

Well said.

Saddly what we "Actually see here" is that EVERY time an attempt is made to hold evolutionists accountable to the ACTUAL wording IN THE TEXT of scripture they... change subjects.

This thread is a perfect example of that.

But who can blame them - since their position is "The TEXT uses a CREATIONIST model BECAUSE the people back then were not as experienced at telling stories about the evolution of living planets as we are today".

In taking that position - they confess that the text is opposed to their speculative guesswork which is the bedrock of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Better to avoid junk-science. Better to stick with PROVEN science."

Young earth science is the ultimate in junk science. Look at how hard you avoid any discussion of the facts in question. I have been trying for pages here to get any of you to defend your assertion that the data really proves the earth is young. You assert it mightily easily. But you skirt any attempt to get you to defend your assertions. I must have given you at least two dozen topics on this thread alone in which you could prove that you can better interpret the data in an young earth than an old. You run from the opportunity.

 

We have two examples of proven science controverting the junk-science of evolutionism.

#1. Isaac Asimov's clear statements on entropy SEEN vs entropy HOPED for in evolutionism.

#2. The chiral orientation in biochemistry SEEN vs the blue-sky science-hoped-for where junk-science is used to imagine NEW laws of biochemistry past that would create ENTIRE LIVING CELLS composed of random chiral distributions of amino acids.

But then - we all saw that - and there is apparently nothing that evolutionists have as a response. They simply "believe in evolutionism anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Isaac Asimov's clear statements on entropy SEEN vs entropy HOPED for in evolutionism."

You have still NEVER told us what entropy prevents happening in evolution. Never. You speak ambiguously about the increase in entropy. Yet, as I have repeatedly pointed out you, the answer is in your very quote. Asimov says that we must do work to overcome the universal tendency towards increased entropy. Local decreases are possible. And as I showed you when we went through G=H-TS, these local decreases can be spontaneous and thermodynamically favorable.

"The chiral orientation in biochemistry SEEN vs the blue-sky science-hoped-for where junk-science is used to imagine NEW laws of biochemistry past that would create ENTIRE LIVING CELLS composed of random chiral distributions of amino acids.

But then - we all saw that - and there is apparently nothing that evolutionists have as a response. "

You have ignored my response above. Or do you not remember the references I gave you to catalyst that favor the formation of one isomer? Amino acids themselves can even catalyze the formation of more amino acids wit the same orientation. I guess once the refutation of your position gets a few days old you will ignore it and post the same problem again.

Anything to avoid all the issues I have presented to you, eh?

 

I did. They address your "need" to find a way out of your problem of not having ANY cell in all of science using racemized chiral distributions for the makeup of the cell itself.

INSTEAD of that you content yourself with the ONE point of bacteria - and within that the ONE point of structures EXTERNAL to the cell wall of bacteria AND THE ONE point of the only protein found "out there" comprised of random chiral distributions -- AS IF that solves your abiogenesis problem.

The fact it - it STILL leaves you with NO cells in ALL OF SCIENCE that are based on the random chiral distributions that your junk-science "imagines" for early first-cell abiogensis.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In response to this devastating fact - that NO LIFE is based on random chiral distributions of amino acids - so NO CELL in all of biology is built on such a system --

UTEOTW sidesteps the point to find that in the special case of ONE EXTERNAL part of bacterial cells - there exists a protein in the cell wall composed of random chiral distributions.

Umm - so it is your "intention" to misdirect the point as if you need "one protein for cells walls in bacteria" to form in "abiogenesis" RATHER than an actual living cell??

Or is this your way of saying that you have decided NOT to rely 100% on junk-science for you abiogenesis myths. NOW you are willing to appeal to "actual science" and show that at most - a protein in the cell-wall of bacteria COULD have formed??? You know - "show" as in "actual science"??!!

If so - I applaud your embracing science - but sadly - it does not get you "a living cell".

OF course - we both knew that it wouldn't. For that you need junk-science and a lot of imagination.

Actually - I think that just about summs it up.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I did. They address your "need" to find a way out of your problem of not having ANY cell in all of science using racemized chiral distributions for the makeup of the cell itself.

INSTEAD of that you content yourself with the ONE point of bacteria - and within that the ONE point of structures EXTERNAL to the cell wall of bacteria AND THE ONE point of the only protein found "out there" comprised of random chiral distributions -- AS IF that solves your abiogenesis problem.

The fact it - it STILL leaves you with NO cells in ALL OF SCIENCE that are based on the random chiral distributions that your junk-science "imagines" for early first-cell abiogensis.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Oh no. I did much more than that.

I showed how sugars with the right orientations are catalyzed and stabilized by a common substance. I showed how another common substance then allows these sugars to combine with phosphates to form the building blocks of RNA and to polymerize into long strands of RNA all with the correct chiral orientation. Even better, the same substance will automatically put this RNA into a vesecle made of fatty acids that functions as a cell membrane. I also showed that RNA can perform the same functions as proteins and gave examples of such functions both in lab derived RNAs and in extant organisms. If you missed all that... Well, I'm going to try and avoid the slander route.

In short, I showed how your racemized proteins problem is aproblem in your own mind but not in reality.

 

In response to this devastating fact - that NO LIFE is based on random chiral distributions of amino acids - so NO CELL in all of biology is built on such a system --

UTEOTW sidesteps the point to find that in the special case of ONE EXTERNAL part of bacterial cells - there exists a protein in the cell wall composed of random chiral distributions.

Umm - so it is your "intention" to misdirect the point as if you need "one protein for cells walls in bacteria" to form in "abiogenesis" RATHER than an actual living cell??

Or is this your way of saying that you have decided NOT to rely 100% on junk-science for you abiogenesis myths. NOW you are willing to appeal to "actual science" and show that at most - a protein in the cell-wall of bacteria COULD have formed??? You know - "show" as in "actual science"??!!

If so - I applaud your embracing science - but sadly - it does not get you "a living cell".

OF course - we both knew that it wouldn't. For that you need junk-science and a lot of imagination.

Actually - I think that just about summs it up.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Oh Bob.

I love how when I give you a scenario that leads to life with the right chiral isomers using RNA you still harp on amino acids. Of course I showed you how they, too, can be catalyzed to prefer one isomer in reactions too. Either way, the racemized mixtures are, well, no longer racemized. But you keep ignoring the facts to keep asserting the same things, even after you are shown how they are wrong. Of course, you keep avoiding all the other issues at hand also.

 

Clearly - in my view "the important part" is to have PROVEN science SHOW cells comprised of random chrial distributions today (you know - MADE UP of them??) OR to show in the lab - a contrived way of building all the proteins needed for a living cell - comprised of mono-chiral L-amino acids.

I already responded to this.

#1. RNA is a molecule NOT a cell.

#2. THERE ARE NO RNA based organisms capable of life WITHOUT fully functional DNA based cells to "feed on".

Or are you proposing that AFTER abiogenesis was fully successful THEN after that - RNA based organisms evolved to feed on the DNA based cells??

Are you proposing something?

More junk-science?

How are you going to ever address the problem of getting to an actual living cell - you know - DNA, Nucleus - cell membrane enclosed structures??

True enough - a catalyst IS NOT a protein and does not make up cell structures.

The problem is "making" the first cell -- have you been misdirected so far by your own argument that you have forgotten the topic?

By the way - thank you for that article on borate minerals.

Are you proposing that they worked the same buhzillions of years ago as they work today?

I would tend to think so -- wouldn't you?

The point remains - we have NO LAB experiment (contrived or otherwise) that shows mono-chiral amino acids as the sole product and with sufficient diversity to form viable mono-chiral proteins usable in living cells.

I see. So you are giving up on ACTUALLY forming the first living cell and you have settled for stands of RNA in clay??

Fascinating!!

Then you have not been following the conversation.

I would take a "purely contrived" experiment in the lab that forms a single amoeba. This would show that with billions of dollars in research WE can form one from scratch.

That would be a BIG STEP towards telling us what to look for in nature that might reproduce each of the steps we used in the lab.

CONTRIVING the successful experiment in the lab does not show that it HAD to happen the way we controved it - but AT LEAST we enter into the realm of "possibility". A big step in abandoning the evolutionists sole dependency on "junk-science".

Makes perfect sense that atheists would "think" that they can have success "creating life". They don't believe the Bible. I fully expect them to try it and to spend millions and billions to "make it happen" anyway they can. I would do that same think if I were in their shoes.

Interesting that you fall back from trying to show the first living cell - to now trying to show a molecule existed.

Hmmm. We are 70% water. (another molecule you may recognize). I suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is that condensation on the bathroom mirror is "evolution proved!"

In Christ,

Bob