Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Gup20 · Jul 29, 2004

The first, obvious point is that you failed to answer the question.

Maybe it's just me... but perhaps you need to revisit the thread topic. This thread was started to see if the Bible holds true to creationist beliefs on it's own. If you want to ask that question, I suggest you do it in the other thread Bob created.

To address your statement, however - you have set up a hypothetical world that does not exist. In fact, modern science is a direct result of Christian men seeking to understand the world as the Bible proclaimed it to be.
For example, Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist, and a christian. His discoveries were directly influenced by his faith. Many of the founders of 'modern science' were this way. So to say 'no scientists come to the conclusion of 6000 years without the Bible' is erroneous because SCIENCE itself is a result of spiritual men seeking to confirm their beliefs and understand the physical world.

Moreover, if the Bible is true, and Genesis is true, then there was no time when this situation existed -

God told Adam to have dominion over the physical world and subdue it. He also had Adam name the animals. Clearly, there was NO TIME in the history of man for science, or the study of the physical realm, to NOT be influenced by God... when in fact God himselft started it. Your very question is full of the assumption that Genesis is not true. For me to answer it in that manner would be to 'answer a fool according to his folly'.

Some of these include the evening and morning refrain on days before the sun was created. It is hard for a non-existent sun to rise in the east and set in the west.

The sun is not needed for evening and morning... only light is needed. Remember, on the FIRST day God separated the light from the dark... the light he called DAY. Clearly, if there is day with light but no sun, then there is morning with light but no sun. How do we know it is morning... because the LIGHT of our sun peers over the horizon... even without a SUN, monring and evening can happen if there is LIGHT and DARKNESS.

The final point to be made, that has yet to be adequately addressed, is that by the same sort of plain reading upon which you insist, you should also believe in a flat, geocentric earth in which the weather is controlled by the opening of windows in a fixed dome over the earth which allows the waters above to fall.

In actual fact, the early Hebrews did not believe this... the early church did not believe this... the latter church did not believe this. This was not an issue until those of Darwin's age tried to make it a big deal in order to try to udermine Biblical authority.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1156.asp

Flat-Earth HeyDay came with Darwin
THE idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.
Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth- written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492-that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, 'nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical.'
Russell says there is nothing in the documents from the time of Columbus or in early accounts of his life that suggests any debate about the roundness of the earth. He believes a major source of the myth came from the creator of the Rip Van Winkle story- Washington Irving-who wrote a fictitious account of Columbus's defending a round earth against misinformed clerics and university professors.
But Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. He says the flat-earth myth was an ideal way to dismiss the ideas of a religious past in the name of modern science.

Ottawa Citizen, May, 1992.

The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv14n3flat_earth.asp

Only you use the Bible to object to evolution. We do not.

Sorry... but 'we' I didn't mean to include you. I meant to include those of us who are right concerning this argument.

No, just kidding. By "we" I meant Young Earth Creationists.

You seem to be saying that you find no way to reconcile evolution with the Bible. Not surprising given your posts.

That is exactly what I am saying. Evolution (defined as increases of information over millions of years causeing single cell creatures to mutate into other creatures leading up to monkeys mutating into humans) has NO RECONCILLIATION WITH SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER!

What specific or general physical evidence would you accept as evidence of an old earth / evolution?
If such evidence was provided, would you still consider this evidence against the Bible?
If such evidence could be presented to you, would you lose your CHristian faith or would you then find a way to reconcile the two?

What specific or general physical evidence would you accept as evidence of an old earth / evolution?
I would accept no physical evidence to support an old earth. I believe the Bible is 100% authoritative and true. The Bible says it is ~ 6000 years old, and I believe it. NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG. How do I know? I believe this by faith becasue that is what the Bible says. Period. I will make no bones about... make no defense of my complete and whole faith in the Bible as absolute truth... even if my very own eyes told me otherwise... I would believe the SCRIPTURE instead! Clearly... with this postion, I must be extremely certain that I uderstand or know what the scriptures say... and I do my best to that end.
If such evidence was provided, would you still consider this evidence against the Bible?
Yes. I would believe the Bible is true no matter what evidence surfaced. However, I also believe that there is no evidence that can disprove scripture. Because the scripture is ultimate and absolute truth... there is nothing that can destroy it. If such evidence appears it is far more likely that the 'facts' are being misinterpreted to mean something wrong then the Bible is incorrect.
If such evidence could be presented to you, would you lose your CHristian faith or would you then find a way to reconcile the two?
This question, like the 2nd, implies that I have the ability to disbelieve scripture because of physical evidence. I tell you now that I do not have this capability. I have decided for myself that the Bible is ultimate and absolute truth. I have decided to believe it as such. Therefore, I will continue to believe BIBLICAL evidence above all other evidence. To put it quite simply... you would have to show it to me in scripture for me to believe it. Evolution is not just simply not mentioned by the Bible, but something that is drastically opposite IS mentioned by the Bible. If it were a matter (like electricity or internal combustion engines) where the Bible did not touch upon it or mention it then I am open to physical evidence. However, where ever the Bible touches upon a subject, and that comes into ANY sort of contradiction with the physical evidence I will ALWAYS believe the Bible is right, and the physical evidence has been mis-interpreted. Such is the case of evolution. Evolution is not simply ignored in the Bible, but it is thoroughly contradicted by the scripture. Therefore I choose to believe the REAL Word of the REAL GOD that I believe in above the fallible and politically motivated science of man.

I am NOT ASHAMED to proclaim this. If my eyes saw the sun and it appeared yellow but the Bible told me it was blue, then I would know my eyes are not working the way that they should, or the sun has changed. No matter what - the Bible is true.

Now the Galatian has tried to convince us that the Bible is saying something else. While this is the correct approach to convincing me, he has failed miserably because he has not been able to use scripture to show that what he 'says the bible teaches' is true. He himself admits that evolution is not supported or advocated by any scripture.

So then... once we find out and determine what the Bible says... given that it is absolute truth... we can take that knowledge and apply it to what science says about the universe to see where science has errors. This can greately aid us and help us to see where our science is wrong. It is our teacher and guide in our quest to discover all the truth about our physical world as well as a spiritual guide. Truth is truth... while the Bible is not a science textbook, where it touches on science and history, it is accurate and correct.

We are not trying to say the Bible is wrong. We are saying that you are wrong.

I have been quoting practically verbatim, and in many cases copy and pasting scripture. So in disagreeing with me... you are indeed disagreeing with scripture. I have much more of it 'on my side' than you do. I have used it exclusively to form my opinion, while your opinion is marred by humanistic and atheistic influenced framework (evolution).

Two quotes from St. Augustine might be appropriate here.

Unfortunately, your humanism still doesn't impress me. Whenever I make point, I quote scripture as the basis of my opnion and belief... whenever you make a point you quote men and men's ideas.

And yes I know that you will dismiss such as taking the opinion of man over that of God ...

It's uncanny how slowly you catch on... but at least you're catching on, eh?

This can be determined false by the simple fact that we are here. We have not rejected Christ. Obviously or we would ne be proclaiming our Christianity and posting here in fellowship with other believers. There could not be an easier to see demonstration that your claims are false.

And through the revelation of God's word passing through my fingers may it never come to that. God orders the steps of a righteous man or woman... perhaps you have come here to hear from God's word and aid you in keeping your faith.

Because while I know that I will never loose my faith on the basis of some physical evidence, YOU are another story. You have already demonstrated an ability to do just that.

A_Christian · Jul 29, 2004

Johnv:

This maybe true of THEIR classes. Science departments can and do vary among different communities. Some of this can be traced to the religious convictions of the community at large.

With that said, that DOESN'T mean that everything will stay that way or that some public schools will not get worse. It also doesn't mean that there are not grounds for IMPROVEMENT in all areas of teaching or non-bias investigative research.

Johnv · Jul 29, 2004

A_Christian, I'm certainly not pretending to speak for every school everywhere, I'm just relating my own well-examined experience. I do think, however, that many will make blanket "worst case" presumptions regarding their own school districts without checking it out for themselves. Pointing the finger is much more convenient than checking it out, since it means the person doesn't have to get up.

The Galatian · Jul 29, 2004

Yet you were unable to answer my question posed directly to you - If you take out the evolution science, and look ONLY at what the Bible says, does it, in your opinion, give the impression of millions of years of history, or does it give the impression that Noah's flood wasn't real?

We certainly don't need science to understand that the Flood was entirely allegorical or possibly an allegory based on a local flood.

The text itself tells us this, since a literal reading would lead you to all sorts of contradictions. For example, there is not enough room on the Ark for all air-breathing creatures. And even if there were, we would have so much work caring for tens of thousands of them that there would be no time for a mere eight people to do it. It is physically impossible for a wooden vessel that size to move in even moderate seas without springing timbers and leaking excessively. The largest wooden ship ever built was smaller than the Ark is said to be, and it could stay afloat only with continual pumping.

There's a lot more.

So you wouldn't just have to toss out evolution. You'd have to pitch physics, engineering, physiology, shipwrighting, and common sense to make this one literal.

If you have a shred of honestly, your answer will be that, No, the Bible does not support millions of years, and it DOES support special creation and the flood as actual recent events.

Sorry, as you learned, that is just not true. In fact, there is no way to interpret Genesis to make a YE possible.

Just as you say the only objection to evolution is the Bible,

No, that's a lie, too. I said there are no creationsts without a religious objection to science. The Bible is entirely compatible with evolution.

we say that the only objection to the Bible is humanism (evolution).

As you learned, Humanism is about Christianity, not evolution.

Your ideas of millions of years and one animal turning into another didn't come from scripture, and is found no where in scripture.

My ideas about electrons and atoms didn't come from scripture, and are found nowhere in scripture, either.

A very different story is found in scripture. YOu have tried to adapt the scripture to support evolution,

No, I merely pointed out that Christians understand that it is compatible with evolution.

You are only serving to undermine scripture - just as has been done in England where the church there long ago capitulated to evolutionary thought. The churches there are, for the most part, empty and dead. The churches here will follow the same pattern unless we restore the Biblical foundation of Genesis.

If you want to do that, the first thing you need to do is stop trying to modify it to fit your desires.

You are serving only to undermine your own faith.

Nope. I'm just admitting that God said what He did. I have no need to add your creationist doctrines to scripture.

The ONLY reason you believe Jesus Died and rose again is because the Bible says it's so. If we can show that the Bible is wrong in Genesis...

Christians believe the Bible is right in Genesis. We just disagree with your interpretation of it, because you add some of your own ideas to it.

if we can dismiss that portion of scripture as non-literal... then we can do the same to every part of scripture that touches on Genesis...

That's just silly. If Jesus tells a parable, and Matthew writes about it, the fact that He tells a figurative story does not mean that Matthew's account is figurative.

and in that, you can dismiss whe ENTIRE BIBLE as non-literal, or allegorical, or fairy tale (which ever of these synonyms you happen to like best).

What a bizarre idea. I have trouble believing that you're serious about this.

Gup20 · Jul 29, 2004

If they would like to take a class on the topic, they're welcome. But no, I don't think it's an essential to one's faith.

While the only pre-requisite to being 'saved' or being a christian is to believe in Jesus, why would the Church or families promote a belief system that actively undermines faith? Why would they promote evolution which attacks Biblical authority in an attempt to discredit it?

The most sound doctrine is to believe the Bible in it's entirety and trust that God knows more about this universe than we do.

Charles Meadows · Jul 29, 2004

Gup20,

"What happens when they tell you that they can scientifically prove that a virgin can't give birth, or that a man can't be raised from the dead, so Jesus probably was never dead... he was just in a coma or something until his body had time to heal itself."

This is a reasonable point - and it brings up several additional issues.

I think the life of Jesus is in every way extraordinary and as such is difficult to subject to the microscope. This is not a conflict to me since the text of the NT is very clearly evangelical. The OT texts, particularly pentateuchal ones, are somewhat of a different matter. Knowing something about near eastern epic writing, multiple eastern creation stories (some older than Genesis and very similar, like Enuma Elish) and the Hebrew language I do not think that Genesis was necessarily intending to be a literal account.

Now regarding the approach to supernaturalism...

I have no problem with the person who states the he/she simply trusts the bible at face value and believes that God could have just made everything as is in 6 days.

What I do have a problem with is those who try to rewrite science to show that YEC is most likely. You mentioned the founders of AIG. I too am a medical doctor - and I did extensive studying, researching and teaching of undergraduates in biology at the University of Virginia. This doesn't make me any better than the next guy - but it does qualify me as one who has a good grasp on science and its methods.

When I read stuff on the AIG site or in bob Ryan's posts it is clear that they are only telling part of the story. The accusations against radiocarbon dating are misstated. The statements concerning thermodynamics are incomplete and often wrong. Anyone with a strong background in science who does not already have a big bias in favor of YEC will see through the YEC arguments - I certainly did.

So like I said - that is my problem with the YEC position.

Gup20 · Jul 29, 2004

The text itself tells us this, since a literal reading would lead you to all sorts of contradictions. For example, there is not enough room on the Ark for all air-breathing creatures. And even if there were, we would have so much work caring for tens of thousands of them that there would be no time for a mere eight people to do it. It is physically impossible for a wooden vessel that size to move in even moderate seas without springing timbers and leaking excessively. The largest wooden ship ever built was smaller than the Ark is said to be, and it could stay afloat only with continual pumping.

These are only contradictions of you believe that the scripture is not literal in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 give us the answer. It says that God created Kinds. You are forgetting that Noah didn't need to take 75 varieties of dog, and 50 varieties of cats on the Ark. He needed only to take the master (or less speciated) kind of dog or cat on the ark with him. All that we see today specialized from the information in those animal kinds.

Also, remember that God told Noah to cover the Ark with Pitch outside and inside. The oceans would have been heated. What does pitch do when it's heated? It expands. This probably served greatly to keep leaks from happening. Moreover, the Bible says that God himself sealed up the Ark. So even if Noah did build a leaky boat, God is the one who sealed it.

Beyond that, we know that Adam and Eve were given their intellect by God. As soon as they were created, they had the ability to talk, for example. God brought animals to Adam to give names to, for example. Beyond this, we know that... according to the principle of kinds... anything we see today is information contained in the original creation that is now being specified. For example, when we see people with fantastic intellects who can do very complex math instantly in their minds and things like this that means we are seeing a shadow of what once was. The early people most likely all had such capabilities. Noah, for example, is well able to build an Ark to God's specifications when asked to do so.

We can see in the natural world this is true as well. If you look at the Egyptian pyramids, for example. The oldest is the largest and most complex and impressive. They get less impressive the newer they get.

We see many ancient works of archatecture that baffle today's engineers. How did ancient man do these things with the tools they had? How did they achive these levels of precision with such crude instraments? The answer is in Genesis!

In fact, there is no way to interpret Genesis to make a YE possible.

OBVIOUSLY Young Earth Creationists have alredy established an interpretation that makes YE possible. In fact, from the beginning of time (if you believe the Bible) man has always believed in a Young Earth. Adam believed God. Noah believed God. All the way up through Abraham and the beggining of the 'Jews'. All throughout Jewish history UNTIL evolution became popular, they believed in a Young Earth. You seem to forget that Young Earth WAS the dominant scientific theory until Darwin changed that. It WAS the domiant theory until geologists decided to dismiss genesis and interpret the layers as meaning millions of years (instead of Flood catastrophy).

From the creation of the world and Adam until Darwin's age men and scientists believed in a young earth. It was not even necessary to give us a title of 'young earth creationists'... or even 'creationists'. We were called scientists until Darwin popularized evolution as a humanistic, natural alternative to belief in scripture.

The Bible is entirely compatible with evolution.

Well then you must be referring to a different book than my Bible. Because my Bible has Genesis and Genesis contradicts evolution from start to finish.

As you learned, Humanism is about Christianity, not evolution.

Humanitarianism, maybe... but humanism, no.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html

'Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.'

Growth of Ideas. The evolution of thought and knowledge. Ed. Sir Julian Huxley, 1965, pp. 99, 336.

Merriam-Websters defines humanism:

Main Entry: hu·man·ism
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&-"ni-z&m, 'yü-
Function: noun
1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

My ideas about electrons and atoms didn't come from scripture, and are found nowhere in scripture, either.

No these ideas came from men such as Robert Boyle who was a dedicated Christian and Young Earth Creationist. Or perhaps Sir Isaac Newton who was also a dedicated chrsitian and YEC. It was these men's quest to obey scripture and interpret the world according to literal scripture that lead them to these discoveries.

If you want to do that, the first thing you need to do is stop trying to modify it to fit your desires.

YEC do not modify scripture, we uphold it AS IT IS WRITTEN! It says "six days..." we believe it means six days, for example.

I have no need to add your creationist doctrines to scripture.

What you fail to relize is that creation IS scripture... but the evolutionary an humanistic ideas you try to fit into it are not.

Let me ask you - if evolution didn't exist... and the physical evidence irrefutably supported a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth, would you be able to believe this is in scripture?

We just disagree with your interpretation of it, because you add some of your own ideas to it.

Riiiiight. We just decided to add the words morning and evening and number to the word day to make it a literal day. We decided to add the idea that the earth was created in six days. We decided to add that Noah's global flood happened. Yes... we just decided to add those things to scripture. Wake up sleepy head! We didn't add those things... the BIble SAYS those things. We just decided to believe them.

That's just silly. If Jesus tells a parable, and Matthew writes about it, the fact that He tells a figurative story does not mean that Matthew's account is figurative.

Dismissing Jesus as a non-literal character is just as silly as dismissing Genesis as a non-literal account. However, it requires the exact same logic.

What a bizarre idea. I have trouble believing that you're serious about this.

Indeed I was being rhetorical. However, I am serious when I say that if you CAN dimiss Genesis as non-literal, then you CAN also dismiss Christ as non-literal. The logic and reasoning for both are the same.

Moreover BECAUSE Genesis is literal we can see that Jesus is literal and real.

[ July 30, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

Johnv · Jul 29, 2004

Originally posted by Gup20:
While the only pre-requisite to being 'saved' or being a christian is to believe in Jesus, why would the Church or families promote a belief system that actively undermines faith?

I don't adhere to evolution as a "belief". I accept it as a theory that reasonably explains the facts at hand. Nothing more. I've taught my kids the same. I don't believe that it or any scientific theories attack, discredit, or undermine one's personal faith. I know you will disagree, as is your right, but you need not fear that my faith or the faith of my children is in jeopardy. It is quite firm, regardless of the topic of evolution/creation, as imo, it should be for all of us as Christians. If my children decide that they conclude differently than me, that's perfectly fine, as I've attempted to raise them to be independent thinkers, not knowkoffs of the old man. Further, if science tomorrow "proved" that evolution was fact, I'd likely accept it, and it wouldn't sway my faith. Also, if science tomorrow "proved" that a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago was fact, I'd likely accept it, and it wouldn't bolster my faith. Regardless of either, my relationship with Jesus is already established and unswerving.

danrusdad · Jul 29, 2004

Originally posted by The Galatian:
We certainly don't need science to understand that the Flood was entirely allegorical or possibly an allegory based on a local flood.

Yet again, this is man's OPINION over what the word CLEARLY says...

The text itself tells us this, since a literal reading would lead you to all sorts of contradictions. For example, there is not enough room on the Ark for all air-breathing creatures.

So you know how many animals were on the ark? Please specify, and give your reasoning. Contrary to popular belief every modern "species" was not necessary.

And even if there were, we would have so much work caring for tens of thousands of them that there would be no time for a mere eight people to do it.

I would like to see the hard numbers on the details that you have done to prove this...

It is physically impossible for a wooden vessel that size to move in even moderate seas without springing timbers and leaking excessively. The largest wooden ship ever built was smaller than the Ark is said to be, and it could stay afloat only with continual pumping.

Sooo, because WE DON'T KNOW how to build one that big, it means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be built? Actually the ratio of dimensions given in the Bible are IDEAL for the size of the ship given. It's imporatant to remember most of the knowledge gained pre-flood was wiped out by the flood. Of course you won't believe this because evolution "proves" that man is getting better...

There's a lot more.

So far I'm waiting for just ONE contradiction in the text...

So you wouldn't just have to toss out evolution. You'd have to pitch physics, engineering, physiology, shipwrighting, and common sense to make this one literal.

No, we just have to toss out the evolutionary bias through which you are interpreting the scriptures.

Actually, you should read John Woodmorrappe's technical study of the feasibility of Noah's ark. He examines all aspects necessary and the common evolutionary assumptions/criticisms and thoroughly demonstrates that the LITERAL, Biblical reading of the text is entirely feasible.

The Galatian · Jul 29, 2004

Barbarian observes:
The text itself tells us this, since a literal reading would lead you to all sorts of contradictions. For example, there is not enough room on the Ark for all air-breathing creatures. And even if there were, we would have so much work caring for tens of thousands of them that there would be no time for a mere eight people to do it. It is physically impossible for a wooden vessel that size to move in even moderate seas without springing timbers and leaking excessively. The largest wooden ship ever built was smaller than the Ark is said to be, and it could stay afloat only with continual pumping.

These are only contradictions of you believe that the scripture is not literal in Genesis 1.

Nope. If Genesis 1 never existed, people would still recognize that the Ark story cannot be literal.

Genesis 1 give us the answer. It says that God created Kinds. You are forgetting that Noah didn't need to take 75 varieties of dog, and 50 varieties of cats on the Ark. He needed only to take the master (or less speciated) kind of dog or cat on the ark with him. All that we see today specialized from the information in those animal kinds.

That makes no sense, either. That would mean that over a few thousand years, evolution would have to act at astounding rates, with new species popping up monthly. And yet, no one over that time seems to have noticed. And there's no way to get that kind of evolutionary change in such a short time.

Also, remember that God told Noah to cover the Ark with Pitch outside and inside. The oceans would have been heated.

Another nonscriptural doctrine added...

What does pitch do when it's heated?

It softens and flows.

It expands. This probably served greatly to keep leaks from happening.

Nope. The beams and laps actually spring and leak. It's not little cracks you can patch up with tar. The U.S.S. Wyoming was about 330 feet long, and leaked so badly in spite of pitch and reinforcing that she was declared unseaworthy.

Moreover, the Bible says that God himself sealed up the Ark. So even if Noah did build a leaky boat, God is the one who sealed it.

He would have also had to reinforce it, since the seals would be pointless if the timber sprung.

But more non-scriptural miracles need to be called in than that. Let's continue.

(nonscriptural assertion of amazing intelligence of humans in the old days)

We can see in the natural world this is true as well. If you look at the Egyptian pyramids, for example. The oldest is the largest and most complex and impressive. They get less impressive the newer they get.

Just because it was bigger. More recent structures are certainly more advanced. No one supposes that any of the Egyptian buildings is as great an accomplishment as a Gothic cathedral. Both are essentially piles of rocks, but the medieval architects, with much more experience behind them, were able to construct huge interior spaces overarched with amazing webbings of stonework.

We see many ancient works of archatecture that baffle today's engineers.

I don't know of any.

How did ancient man do these things with the tools they had?

We know what tools they had, because the crews building the pyramids, for example, left them laying around. The measurements were done with a trundle wheel. When I used to do consulting work, I sometimes used one myself, very like the Egyptian one. If you would like some of the details, you might want to read a classic of historical mathematics, Lancelot Hogben's "Mathematics for the Million."

How did they achive these levels of precision with such crude instraments?

They aren't all that precise. Even when the pyramids were covered with fine stone facing, and you could actually measure them, they were off by more than modern surveying could do.

Barbarian observes:
In fact, there is no way to interpret Genesis to make a YE possible.

You are a complete fool if you truely believe this.

Matthew 5:22 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

OBVIOUSLY Young Earth Creationists have alredy established an interpretation that makes YE possible.

Nope. As you learned, a literal interpretation of Genesis produces logical contradictions like mornings and evenings with no sun.

You seem to forget that Young Earth WAS the dominant scientific theory until Darwin changed that.

No, that's wrong. Most creationists at the time were OE creationists. YE creationism as we know it today was invented by the Seventh-day Adventists in the last century. Even in the early 1900s, most creationists were OE creationists, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

Lyell, who prededed Darwin, collected a great deal of data, and when he published, it became clear to everyone that a young Earth was not possible.

Barbarian observes:
The Bible is entirely compatible with evolution.

Well then you must be referring to a different book than my Bible.

That's possible. Yours seems to have a lot of recent additions in it.

Because my Bible has Genesis and Genesis contradicts evolution from start to finish.

Genesis, as you have learned, contradicts YE creationism. It is, however, compatible with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, Humanism is about Christianity, not evolution.

Humanitarianism, maybe... but humanism, no.

Without Humanism, there would have been no reformation. You keep confusing "secular humanism" with Humanism.

Barbarian on the idea that all truth must be in the Bible:
My ideas about electrons and atoms didn't come from scripture, and are found nowhere in scripture, either.

No these ideas came from men such as Robert Boyle who was a dedicated Christian and Young Earth Creationist.

Really? I'd be pleased to see the evidence for that.

Or perhaps Sir Isaac Newton who was also a dedicated chrsitian and YEC.

Newton denied the divintity of Christ. I would thing it would be a bit of a stretch calling him a Christian.

And if you read Newton's work, you will find that all of his science and all his theories are heldup not by any recourse to religion at all, but only to evidence and mathematics.

Just like science today. Imagine that.

Barbarian on the way to reconcile one's faith with science:
If you want to do that, the first thing you need to do is stop trying to modify it to fit your desires.

YEC do not modify scripture, we uphold it AS IT IS WRITTEN! It says "six days..." we believe it means six days, for example.

You should always let the text tell you whether it is literal or not. You learned why Christians know it is not literal.

Barbarian observes:
I have no need to add your creationist doctrines to scripture.

What you fail to relize is that creation IS scripture...

Creation, but not YE creationism, which denies creation.

Let me ask you - if evolution didn't exist... and the physical evidence irrefutably supported a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth, would you be able to believe this is in scripture?

There would still be a problem, wouldn't there? There's scripture itself, which refutes that idea.

Barbarian on Christians who hold to the Bible as it is written:
We just disagree with your interpretation of it, because you add some of your own ideas to it.

Riiiiight. We just decided to add the words morning and evening and number to the word day to make it a literal day.

I know that it must seem like a little change to you, but it makes quite a difference.

Barbarian on the notion that the Bible must be all literal or all figurative:
That's just silly. If Jesus tells a parable, and Matthew writes about it, the fact that He tells a figurative story does not mean that Matthew's account is figurative.

Dismissing Jesus as a non-literal character is just as silly as dismissing Genesis as a non-literal account. However, it requires the exact same logic.

I have never heard a person, claiming to be a Christian, say anything like that, before.

Barbarian:
What a bizarre idea. I have trouble believing that you're serious about this.

Indeed I was being rhetorical. However, I am serious when I say that if you CAN dimiss Genesis as non-literal, then you CAN also dismiss Christ as non-literal. The logic and reasoning for both are the same.

You believe that there is no evidence for Christ?

I'd say you were dead wrong.

BobRyan · Jul 29, 2004

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Gup20,

"Imagine if you had the tools and resources that are available now - such as websites like ICR, AiG, and True Origins. You would have been equiped to "give an answer to every many who asks you about your faith".

That's just the problem! I've heard all these answers before! These sites represent alot of work by well-meaning believers. But they also represent laughable attempts to manipulate science into saying what it does not say!

Anyone who actually KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS biology, chemistry, physics, etc will not be swayed by the AiG type stuff. It just doesn't fit.

It would be nice if all of science pointed to a young earth but it doesn't - it just doesn't!

If we insist that a literal Genesis is an integral part of Christianity then many will lose their faith when the begin higher studies.

A. That is not a Bible argument for the integrity of God's Word -- it is an "appeal" to the junk science of evolutionism. "AS IF" it worked".

B. The junk science claim is dealt with on the junk-science thread devoted to evolutionism.

C. The point remains - the Bible argues for the Creationist model "FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 29, 2004

Originally posted by The Galatian:
I would be very pleased if someone could name me even one scientist who objects to evolution for other than a religious reason. [/QB]

All godly Christian scientists who reject the junk science of evolutionism. I am personnaly acquainted with phd's in phsysics, chemistry and other sciences who give well grounded "good science" proofs that the junk science appeals in evolutionism are simply "fairytales for the devotees of the doctrines of evolutionism" -- and the junk science thread points this out.

In the mean time - the focus here is on the flagrant contradictions between the Word of God and the myths of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"So now, according to your faith, be it unto you. Clearly, I have shown you guys where your non-literal claims will take you... to the very rejection of Christ, and the undermining of all of God's Word. "

This can be determined false by the simple fact that we are here. We have not rejected Christ. Obviously or we would ne be proclaiming our Christianity and posting here in fellowship with other believers. There could not be an easier to see demonstration that your claims are false.

Then perhaps you would be willing to address the point of the thread.

You yourself admitted that the Bible uses a creationist model instead of spouting evolutionism "BECAUSE" the people of Bible times were too ignorant to be given anything else.

Hard to miss the implications of such a teaching.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2004

Barbarian observes:
The text itself tells us this, since a literal reading would lead you to all sorts of contradictions. For example, there is not enough room on the Ark for all air-breathing creatures. And even if there were, we would have so much work caring for tens of thousands of them that there would be no time for a mere eight people to do it.

Nothing in what you have said is "proof" of anything except the extent to which you don't understand the power of God - or what you are reading.

The ark took the unclean animals in by two's and the clean animals by sevens. That means that for ALL of the canines on the planet all you needed was two animals and they did not have to be adults.

You make sweeping statements totally devoid of actual facts in your anti-Bible assertions.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you fail to relize is that creation IS scripture...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation, but not creationism, which denies creation.

Creation, Creationism, the fact that "IN SIX DAYS God CREATED the heavens the earth the sea and ALL that is in them"...

Yes -- all that is in the Bible. "Obviously"

In Christ,

Bob

The Galatian · Jul 30, 2004

Barbarian requests:
I would be very pleased if someone could name me even one scientist who objects to evolution for other than a religious reason.

All godly Christian scientists who reject the junk science of evolutionism.

So you can't think of one, either? No one can.

I am personnaly acquainted with phd's in phsysics, chemistry and other sciences who give well grounded "good science" proofs that the junk science appeals in evolutionism are simply "fairytales for the devotees of the doctrines of evolutionism" -- and the junk science thread points this out.

So far, you've been unable to come up with one. I guess now would be the time to mention the PhD, and his argument,and we can examine it.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2004

I have already posted the argument of the physicist on the subject of entropy on the other board. I spoke with the scientist who is a chemist (PHD in chemistry) today and mentioned some of the junk science fact-less appeals to abiogensis and found that his view of the chiral problem is as stated on that thread.

These men both believe the Word of God - but have been more than happy to explain the difference between junk science and good science. The appeal to the Word of God AND to avoid "junk science" is consistent.

In Christ,

Bob

Charles Meadows · Jul 30, 2004

Bob,

If you assert that all science suuporting an old earth is "junk science" then you either don't understand science well or you haven't encountered any CORRECT (non AiG) explanations of the topics you've discussed.

A_Christian · Jul 30, 2004

It must be understood that GOD shut the door of Noah's Ark. It was GOD that had delivered the animals to Noah. It was GOD that took care of the aquatic creatures. It was GOD who protected the Ark
(He at least remembered it). The presence of GOD was likely in that ark.

Migratory and hibernation habits of many creatures today may in FACT be innate rememberances of the Great Flood (that is if you are EVEN WILLING to believe in GOD at all).

A_Christian · Jul 30, 2004

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Bob,

If you assert that all science suuporting an old earth is "junk science" then you either don't understand science well or you haven't encountered any CORRECT (non AiG) explanations of the topics you've discussed.

It is very easy to take quality parts and assemble it into trash. It is just as easy to place quality data in the hands of CHILDREN and formulate misconception and distortion.

Evolutionism vs the Gospel

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member