The theories of Creation & Evolution compared

Undeniable facts.

#1. As Richard Dawkings points out - the attributes of evolutionism provide the best and most well-reasoned non-God solution for origins that exists today. Atheist evolutionists are clearly devoted to it as their one and only solution to the problem of origins.

#2. All science that seeks to explore beyond what we can demonstrate in the lab today - starts with an hypothesis and seeks to construct experiments (discover data) that either fits that theory or shows it to be in error. So the starting theory simply represents a starting bias.

#3. However the subject of origins is "loaded" in that the starting bias has as much to do with theology and doctrine as it does with "science in a vacuum". Atheist Evolutionist's NEED an atheist solution and evolutionism fits the bill perfectly. Christians that rely on exegesis to understand scripture on the subject of origins NEED a Genesis 1-2:3 "Solution" to be found true.

With those undeniable facts as a starting point - we "discover" that Atheists THEMSELVES are helpful in exposing the junk-science blunders, gaffs and flaws of evolutionism. We found this in four specific cases.

#1. Abiogenesis imaginings
#2. The Horse Series fantasy
#3. The Myth that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate BETWEEN True Bird and true reptile.
#4. The "NEED" of evolutionism to discover a "massive DECREASE in entropy" that would allow for evolution from molecult-to-human-brain.

The Christian evolutionist response to these clear facts exposed EVEN by atheist evolutionists - has been to stonewall, obfuscate, misdirect and sidetrack the discussions on those four specific points. Holding to their "story" in spite of the inconvenient facts.

That is entirely what we would expect of the atheists that have "no other choice" when confronted with the junk-science blunders of evolutionism. Why Christian evolutionists would choose that same approach is still baffeling.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the case of our faith --

#1. Romans 5 makes it clear that it is the ONE sin of the ONE man who was in fact "Adam" that resulted in the DEATH of all.

#2. In Romans 1 we learn that the attributes of God "are CLEARLY SEEN" in those things HE HAS MADE.

This challenges the notion that HE MADE nothing. Rather He started the ball rolling such that NOTHING we see today was in fact directly MADE by God in a way that "reveals His attributes". Instead (atheists argue) what we SEE reveals the "attributes" of evolution - showing us how it works, and how all things evolved "starting from nothing".

#3. The Gospel writers continually appeal to the "details" of the Genesis account- the VERY details that atheist evolutionists admit they "need to deny" and that "evolutionism DOES deny".

#4. The heart of the very Law of God (Exodus 20:8-11) provides an iron-clad summary statement of Christ the Creator's actions in creation week - as it equates that week to the week at Sinai.

Again "the very details" most "denied" by atheist evolutionists via evolutionism are the "details" central to the Gospel, the Law of God and the Gospel writer's arguments.

#4. In variably - when Christian evolutionists take up the ball-and-chain of atheist evolutionism - they confess that their "separation" from the words of Scripture goes far beyond the first 3 chapters of the Word of God. They will quickly object to acceptance of the geneologies of scripture, the ages of those living before the flood, the flood, and almost any miracle you choose to name in the OT.

The "trade off" they have made is "glaringly obvious".

#5. These Christian evolutionists also commit themselves to a line of reasoning that forces them deny the science and integrity of highly skilled scientists that are Bible believing Christians who find complete harmony between REAL science and God's Word.

The fruits of that corrupt union attempted between evolutionism and the gospel are abundantly clear.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your case would have been much better made if Paul had said "Let no pagan tempt you by urging that you ADD pagan practices to your pure forms of worship".

However even that would not suffice - because the case you want to make is "let no pagan seek to teach you the proper way to keep the Passover. So many pagans are taking positions of authority when it comes to keeping the Passover and the food and drink regulations of scripture, but in fact they are not the supreme authority on keeping God's Word - that they claim to be".

No such arguments are made in all of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh Bob!

"As Richard Dawkings points out ..."

Dawkins has no relevant expertice on religious matters and thus his opinion on religious matters is inconsequential and have nothing to do with the validity of TOE.

"So the starting theory simply represents a starting bias."

And the unmet challenge that follows from that is that you should be able to show us the problems with the interpretation of the evidence due to the bias and you should be able to give us interpretations that BETTER fit the data set.

"Abiogenesis imaginings"

Which fantasies would those be? YOu brought this up before in the guise of the inability to make optically pure compounds and you have not backed down in the face of references that show how such compounds CAN be made quite easily from simple precursors and using very common materials as catalyst.

"The Horse Series fantasy"

Do you yet have any facts to support this assertion? SO far all you have offered us are misquotes. The quotes, in context, are telling us that the 100 years ago view of a simple A to B to C gradual series were incomplete and that the real progression was jerky and bushy. Do you have any facts or are you content to stand by your misquotes?

"The Myth that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate BETWEEN True Bird and true reptile."

This should be good. Please tell us how it is merely a myth? YOu have been give ample evidence on traits which archy posses which no other birds have but which are fully shared by the theropod dinosaurs. You have been given the names of transitionals both more bird like and more reptile like. Do you yet have any evidence for your claim that the 1980s archy conference found that it was just a bird? I have given you evidence both from the authors you cited and several other authors at the conference that show that they support archy as a transitional. You have merely asserted the same untrue claims without bothering to even provide any facts.

"The "NEED" of evolutionism to discover a "massive DECREASE in entropy" that would allow for evolution from molecult-to-human-brain."

Your reference for this disagrees with you conclusion and says so in the part of his statement you always leave out. Do you think you know more about thermo than Asimov?

 

No, you're thinking of deism, not science or theistic evolution.

I think atheists think that there was always something. Evolutionary theory can't say one way or another. It's limited to the physical universe.

 

Galatian

Your PM feature is turned off.

 

So it was. It's fixed now.

 

To put it quite simply, Creation is the deistic view of the earth/universe (as outlined by the Bible). Evolution is the humanistic view (sans-creator/God) or naturalistic view if you prefer.

Creation takes God as the direct Creator, and His Word as the account of the origin of life on earth. Evolution takes nature as the origin of life on earth.

Creation is a view of the past that says that the natural came to be by supernatural means. Evolution is a vew of the past that says nature came about by nature itself.

Creation is a historical view which includes both supernatural and natural influences. Evolution is a historical view that excludes supernatural and focusses only on natural influences.

Creation is right, evolution is wrong.

Creation is supported entirely by God's Word, evolution is refuted entirely by God's Word. Creation is God ordained, God breathed, anointed doctrine (aka Christ-supported). Evolution is secular humanism, which is a doctrine created by Satan himself.

Those Christians who believe in Creation are going to heaven. Those Christians who believe in Evolution are going to heaven. Those Christians who believe in Creation lead people towards God and Truth. Those christians who believe in evolution lead people towards disbelief in scripture and away from Truth.

Creationists point to God and to Scripture to know truth - even as the SOURCE of truth. Evolutionists point to humanism, to man, and to interpretation of physical evidence (and to the exclusion of God and His Word) to know truth (as Eve did when she took the apple at the Serpents beguilement).

 

This is not true. Many people who believe in God accept evolution as God's instrument, including the Pope, and including me.

Evolution, being a science of men, cannot "take nature" or do anything else of a philosophical nature. Men who take nature as the sole source of everything are materialists. Not all evolutionists are materialists.

Evolution is a view of the past that says nature, once it existed by whatever means (that means being unspecified), unfolded in a particular manner described by the sciences.

Science ignores the supernatural like all science; it is therefore in my own mind merely incomplete, not wrong.

Not according to the evidence.

Only in certain interpretations. Other interpretations allow for both God's word and evolution to co-exist.

Evolution is not a philosophy. Secular Humanism attempts to incorporate evolution because it is perceived as a truth by those who are humanists. This is not the fault of evolution.

Those Christians who disbelieve in evolution lead people to question the reality of their faith, because if Christians can be so wrong about basic matters that are established by science, why should they be considered right about their religion?

 

Paul of Eugene:

It is the matters established by GOD that have credibility. Where man is at odds with GOD, it is man who loses-----not GOD.

I believe GOD is allowing evolution to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is nothing to convince me that Adam was an ape or a person of low mental abilities. Actually, I believe the very opposite to be true.

 

Gup20,

"Those Christians who believe in Creation are going to heaven. Those Christians who believe in Evolution are going to heaven. Those Christians who believe in Creation lead people towards God and Truth. Those christians who believe in evolution lead people towards disbelief in scripture and away from Truth."

I do agree somewhat with the last sentence! I have never wanted to argue against belief in the bible, in any context. I have alot of reservations about "creation science" and similar things because I think that this can hurt the credibility of Christianity in the eyes of some people to whom we would witness. But that being said I think most believers are just looking for a reasonable doubt in the evolution scheme - so my net effect in arguing against creationism may not be positive!! That's why I don't argue this much (except on debate boards!)

 

Creation and Evolution compared:

It is written: "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine".

The reprove of this issue: "In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1. Also: Let God be found true, and every man a liar.

This is a battle between world views--they both cannot be true. Actually there is a third viewpoint: theistic evolution, which is a feeble attempt by those who want to "ride the fence." There is no "middle ground" in this issue; nor in any other issue that involves the verity of the Word of God. To allegorize any of God's Word is most of God's Word is blasphemy plain and simple. Those who would put the meanderings of pseudo-science on the same level as the Word of God know not the scripture nor the power of God.

Those who believe in evolution have usually denied the existence of God and the accountability inherent to the existence of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

It is God who placed the evidence for the ancient age of the universe in the skies and in the elements. It is God who placed the fossil record and the dna records proving common descent in place. You meet all the taxonomic requirements to be an ape, as do we all, and nobody says Adam was of low mental abilities!

(I remain amazed by the ability of the anti-science crowd to just make things up and then speak against them . . . why do they do that?)

 

Ho hum. Are you trying to say there is disagreement on how to interpret the scriptures? This is news? Have you considered the KJVO debate, the Calvinist/Armenian debate, the pre/post millinium debate, the what day do we worship on debate, etc etc etc?

 

It is God who placed the evidence for the ancient age of the universe in the skies and in the elements. It is God who placed the fossil record and the dna records proving common descent in place. You meet all the taxonomic requirements to be an ape, as do we all, and nobody says Adam was of low mental abilities!

(I remain amazed by the ability of the anti-science crowd to just make things up and then speak against them . . . why do they do that?) </font>[/QUOTE]You say it is God who placed the fossil record and dna in place. Thus far you may or may not be correct. But you blew it big time when you make the quantum leap forward and say this proves common descent. That conclusion is wrong. Had you said they prove common DESIGN then I may be, (MAY BE) persuaded to agree with you.

But that is a great big humongous may-be.
One of my Instructors said, "Take your doctrine FROM the Bible, not TO it and you will do fine."

Paul; I see your feeble attempts to discredit Scripture as just that. Feeble. You begin with an UNPROVABLE theory and state it as fact when you know very well that it is STILL theory. Honesty demands that you acknowledge this fact.
My soul, even atheists, when pressed, will admit THAT.
In His service;
Jim

 

But why would a common designer include the exact same genetic mistake in all primates, including humans, that prevents them from producing vitamin C while leaving all the other chemical machinery for making vitamin C in place but without function?

And countless other examples?

One more?

Why do two animal as unlike as a horse and a hippo have a series of related intermediated that can trace them back to the same common ancestor? If you thinkthat this series does not exist, then why do genetics show the same, unintuitive relationship?

Another?

Why does the fossil record show that whales evolved from ungulates (animals with hooves)? If the transitional series is wrong, then why does genetic testing confirm such an unintuitive link?

 

BTW, creation is not a deistic idea. It is accepted by deists and theists alike.

 

It is God who placed the evidence for the ancient age of the universe in the skies and in the elements. It is God who placed the fossil record and the dna records proving common descent in place. You meet all the taxonomic requirements to be an ape, as do we all, and nobody says Adam was of low mental abilities!

(I remain amazed by the ability of the anti-science crowd to just make things up and then speak against them . . . why do they do that?) </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I wouldn't blame GOD for your feeble interpretation of the data. Seems to me that all living things were made from the dust GOD created.
I personally see no reason why I might share miroscopic trates with butter beans ----- that doesn't suggest to me that GOD made me by way of the butter bean. I am amazed that some scientists need to assume that "almost" is good enough proof for anything ----- including DNA. I also have a hard time understanding a mentality which suggests that GOD couldn't create the Universe to appear anyway He wants it to ------ it certainly doesn't look old to me. As for fossil records, well EVERY evolutionist I've ever talked to seems to believe the the FLOOD had NOTHING to do with them. The fact is that the ones who interpreted the fossil data as proof of evolution don't even believe the Flood happened... So you may EVEN be at odds with them YOURSELF. So why be alittle odd when you can be totally peculiar. Christians are suppose to be.