Evolutionism, what magnitude of error?

For those evolutionists reading this - I want you to expand your practice a bit and objectively consider the fact that evolutionism is the very junk-science myth that it has been shown to be on this message board. (For the sake of argument during this thread).

Now the question. (which is primarily for non-evolutionists, since the opening fact is probably too much to hope that evolutionists will allow for the sake of discussion).

Among the common errors in Christianity - What is the magnitude of the error of evolutionism?

Is it merely "coincidence" that this is the one religious system of origins acceptable to atheists?

It is merely "coincidence" that atheists and most Bible-believing Christians (that trust the Genesis "Account") - SEE that evolutionism is the only acceptable challenge contradicting the view of origins as contained in God's word in Genesis 1-2:3?

Is it merely "coincidence" that atheists beliefs in evolutionism strike directly at the start of the Gospel message in John (in John 1) regarinding the work and authority of Christ the Creator and directly at the heart of the start of God's word in Genesis regarding the origin of man - and the fall of man and the justice, love and mercy of God?

Is it merely "coincidence" that this corruption of science AND of the Word AND of the Gospel is accepted by the great majority of established - older religious Christian denominations?

Is it merely "coincidence" That the RCC that brought us the errors of purgatory, and praying to the dead, and slaughtering the saints - also is foremost in embracing evolutionism among Christians?

Is this just one error among many - or is it a crowning masterpiece of deception?

Or to phrase it so that even the evolutionists can join the discussion (assuming it is in error - is the error just one among many or - is it "the big one"?)

In Christ,

Bob

Lets contrast the error of evolutionism as compared to the error of the JWs.

There are many millions more Christians promoting evolutionism than the doctrines of the JWs.

In fact you could easily argue that the error of the JWs is not very different from early first century disciples just before they accepted the teaching of the Trinity.

Whatever else you may think of them - they are certainly not as numerous as the Christian evolutionists - and they DO insist on a real and faithful rendering of the Genesis text - which means they DO accept that Christ Created the World JUST as He said "for real" and that His role as descibed in Genesis 1 and John 1 is literally true.

But - you never hear Christians as exercised in exposing evolutionism as a Christian-doctrinal-error like you hear them going after that much smaller - tiny group - the JWs.

Is this a case of swallowing the Camel???

Letting the JWs walk away WITH the role of Christ as Creator in tact, and the fall of man in tact, and the love, and the need to believe the Word for what it SAYS in tact, and the justice and mercy of God in Creating man in paradise in tact --- while the Christian evolutionists deny it all with hardly a mention from Christian critics??

Almost everyone here said they would not allow an evolutionist to teach Bible classes - but what level is the compromise of evolutionism? How much of the Gospel does it erode? How does the error of evolutionism compare to the faithful people of God in the NT pre-Cross who were monotheistic and had not yet accepted the truth of the Trinity?

Would it be better to have been Elisha (not knowing about the Trinity) - or a believer in evolutionism denying the Genesis account?

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by BobRyan:
For those evolutionists reading this - I want you to expand your practice a bit and objectively consider the fact that evolutionism is the very junk-science myth that it has been shown to be on this message board. (For the sake of argument during this thread).

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Is evolution theory junk science? Evolution theory explains why I have the non-coding genes for making vitamin c. Evolution theory explains why I have a coccyx and an appendix. Evolution theory explains why I can wiggle my ears. Evolution theory explains why whales have vestigal hip bones. Evolution theory explains why there are so many many fossils of extint creatures. Evolution theory explains things that could be listed for pages and pages.

Nope, its not junk science.

Now the question. (which is primarily for non-evolutionists, since the opening fact is probably too much to hope that evolutionists will allow for the sake of discussion).

Among the common errors in Christianity - What is the magnitude of the error of evolutionism?

Click to expand...

zero of course. However, the magnitude of of the error of OPPOSING evolution is pretty large, because it places a barrier before those we would reach for Christ - the barrier of asking them to deny what they know to be true.

Is it merely "coincidence" that this is the one religious system of origins acceptable to atheists?

Click to expand...

evolution is science, not religion. You'll have to ask God why He chose to not make Himself readily visible to all by means of frequent, visible miracles; finding a natural explanation for the patterns of life is merely an extension of that well known pattern He follows.

It is merely "coincidence" that atheists and most Bible-believing Christians (that trust the Genesis "Account") - SEE that evolutionism is the only acceptable challenge contradicting the view of origins as contained in God's word in Genesis 1-2:3?

Click to expand...

What proof do you have for your estimates based on the world wide incidence of christianity and the correlated world wide incidence of acceptance of evolution? What surveys cite these notions?

Is it merely "coincidence" that atheists beliefs in evolutionism strike directly at the start of the Gospel message in John (in John 1) regarinding the work and authority of Christ the Creator and directly at the heart of the start of God's word in Genesis regarding the origin of man - and the fall of man and the justice, love and mercy of God?

Click to expand...

That's not true. The heart of Genesis One is fully compatible with evolution when properly interpreted.

Is it merely "coincidence" that this corruption of science AND of the Word AND of the Gospel is accepted by the great majority of established - older religious Christian denominations?

Click to expand...

maybe they've had more time to think about it?

Is it merely "coincidence" That the RCC that brought us the errors of purgatory, and praying to the dead, and slaughtering the saints - also is foremost in embracing evolutionism among Christians?

Click to expand...

Who says they're foremost? The modern catholic church has taken steps to apologize for the shameful condemnation of Gallileo and his contemporaries and is seeking to avoid making the same kind of mistake with regards to evolution. That's one advantage of being educated, one can realize the pitfalls that are out there to be avoided.

Is this just one error among many - or is it a crowning masterpiece of deception?

Or to phrase it so that even the evolutionists can join the discussion (assuming it is in error - is the error just one among many or - is it "the big one"?)

In Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

BobRyan is not baptist, he is Seventh Day Adventist. As such, he is slavishly bound to interpret the Bible in accordance with the teachings of his church and is not free to objectively consider the evidence for interpreting in any other fashion. Hence his continual war with evidence, reason, and any alternate way of interpreting the Bible. In this he shows the same resistance to new learning shown by the pharasees of old.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution theory explains why I have the non-coding genes for making vitamin c.

Click to expand...

That is such atheistic evolutionist mythological nonsense.

The reason is God. I urge you to accept the truth and not the lie put forth by Theophobes and Secularists.

Originally posted by BobRyan:
For those evolutionists reading this - I want you to expand your practice a bit and objectively consider the fact that evolutionism is the very junk-science myth that it has been shown to be on this message board.

Click to expand...

I'll bite. I rarely enter these discussions, except to play advocatus diaboli from time to time. But there's one question that I and others have raised that never gets an answer.

Forget carbon dating for a moment. Forget old earth ideas and long time lines for a monent. There is one issue that YEC literalists do not have an answer for, and that cannot be explained if Genesis 1 is literal:

Why is it that dinosaur bones are never found to be in the same era as modern humans? Even if one presumes that carbon dating is flawed, dinosaur bones are consistently found to be of a different age than human bones. The age differenes can only be explained that dinosaurs and humand lived in diffrent eras, and that humans were not present when dinosaurs were present. Even if we presume that carbon dating is flawed, the resultant date ranges should overlap when tested, but they do not. Even if the earth is, say, 10,000 years old, the fossil evidence does not support the idea that humand and dinosaurs once shared the same place in time.

Originally posted by Johnv:
Why is it that dinosaur bones are never found to be in the same era as modern humans?

Click to expand...

That is not true. I would advise you to take some time and Google the subject along the lines of "dinosaurs and humans existed together".

The truth will ultimately defeat evolutionist mythology. In the meantime, I urge everyone not to buy into its lies.

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Evolution theory explains why I have the non-coding genes for making vitamin c.

Click to expand...

That is such atheistic evolutionist mythological nonsense.

The reason is God. I urge you to accept the truth and not the lie put forth by Theophobes and Secularists. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, that doesn't say much because God is behind everything. Are you saying God deliberately designed men and other primates with the defective vitamin C gene flawed in exactly the same way in species after species?

Or are you saying that God designed animals and made most of them with the vitamin C gene just fine but got the blueprint wrong for men and other primates and just kept on copying the same gene wrongly primate after primate without noticing it?

Or are you just saying one shouldn't even think about it because thinking is dangerous?

I contend that it makes sense to view God as using the evolutionary process to create men; and the fact that this evolutionary process allows mistakes like the vitamin C thingy to come along and affect all the species downline from where the original mistake came in is no big deal.

I further contend that of all the options for viewing God and the state of affairs regarding the vitamin C gene, my own view is the least insulting towards God of them all.

Evolutionist mythology requires death. Death entered the world because of sin. There was no death until man sinned. Therefore, one cannot hold to evolutionist mythology and have any kind of reasonable Biblical theology at the same time because he would be saying that God lied when He told us that death was the result of sin.

I will believe God, not the evolutionist mythologists.

The Biblical references to death coming into the world because of the sin of Adam are references to men dying, and have nothing to say about the animal kingdom outside the protected sanctuary of the garden of Eden.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
The Biblical references to death coming into the world because of the sin of Adam are references to men dying, and have nothing to say about the animal kingdom outside the protected sanctuary of the garden of Eden.

Click to expand...

Whose says so? And on what Biblical basis?

Paul, What deficiency in the attributes of God leads you to believe that He could not create the world as it suited His purpose in a moment of time?

I asked the question on another thread but perhaps you could answer:

Imagine that someone made a sculpture and abandoned it in an isolated area. Later a scientist finds it and assuming that no creative being had been involved begins to try to explain the creation by the laws of nature. Could it be explained? If so, would the explanation require that the creation be young or old?

You want to talk about magnitude of error? If the universe is 8,000 years old, then one magnitude of error would yield a number between 80,000 and 800 years. If the universe is estimated at 12 billion years old then 1 magnitude of error would yield limits of 120 billion to 1.2 billion years.

Point being that a "scientific" estimate that yielded one magnitude of error would be laughed down but some young earth creationists would not gag at an 80,000 year old universe.

Except that the age of the universe is known to much better than an order of magnitude. Studies of the cosmic microwave background have narrowed the age to 13.7 billion years, plus or minus 1 - 2 hundred million years, or an error of about 1%.

Studies of the cosmic microwave backgroung have also confirmed the theory of inflation in a stupendous way. Inflation predicted that the variation in temperature at different scales should have a very specific pattern. The pattern was the result of the way cosmic fluctuations were expanded during the infaltionary period. The results match the predictions to a very high degree.

Inflation has also enjoyed an additional recent success. Inflation predicts that the density of matter in the universe should be just what is needed to create a "flat" geometry for space-time. This seemed to be a problem when studies showed that the visible matter of the universe only contained 5% of the mass needed to make the universe flat. Then studies of the rotation of galaxies and of the motions in galaxy clusters revealed that 25% of the mass needed for a flat universe was tied up in dark matter. Still short. Then recent studies have revealed that 70% of the mass needed for a flat universe is tied up in dark energy. Amazingly, inflation's predictions are shown to be true as when you add up the total mass of the universe, it is exactly as predicted by inflation!

The Biblical references to death coming into the world because of the sin of Adam are references to men dying,--

Click to expand...

Is this your conclusion because it's necessary to fit your paradigm, or can you give some biblical back-up?

-- and have nothing to say about the animal kingdom outside the protected sanctuary of the garden of Eden.

Click to expand...

Again, is this your conclusion because it's necessary to fit your paradigm, or can you give some biblical back-up?

Each assumption you make argues from the silence of the scripture; not a very good basis to form a belief system.

While it's a fact that I can not prove your hypothesis wrong, I will stake my beliefs on what God says He DID rather than what He MAY have done and just didn't give us the details.

Clearly the evolutionists posting so far are really struggling to master the concept of this thread. Perhaps more "help" is needed to nudge them closer to the ability to be "objective" and use rational thought for this kind of sensitive topic.

I will offer to help them again.

For the sake of this discussion we are assuming that the junk-science methods used by true believers in evolutionism is just dead wrong!

Please don't whine about "Believing in evolutionism anyway" - the point of this thread is not to disuade you from your faith in evolutionism nor even to debate the junk-science methods evolutionists employ. NOR even to discuss why many Creator-trusting Genesis-believing Christians do not accept the junk-science methods of evolutionism.

That is all for other threads to explore to the Nth degree - as those subjects are all very important and need to be explored.

BUT IN THIS THREAD - the question is - ASSUMING that the error of evolutionism is as obvious to all as it now is to some, WHAT level of doctrinal error IS evolutionism by comparison with other well-known doctrinal errors in the Christian Church?

(Come on evolutionists - it just isn't that hard to get the gist of this and evaluate the result).

I gave some good examples to campare it to... non-trinitarian, praying to the dead, believing in purgatory etc.

To "help again" - suppose you had to be saddled with one of those errors and that ALL of them ARE errors. Which one would leave you better prepared to RECOVER from that error and DISCOVER your error?

Which error would do more damage to your understanding of God, of His love and justice and mercy, and of trust in His Word?

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by Johnv:
There is one issue that YEC literalists do not have an answer for, and that cannot be explained if Genesis 1 is literal:

Why is it that dinosaur bones are never found to be in the same era as modern humans?

Click to expand...

The same question -- and it always gets the same answer.

Answer - The combination of turbidity current action and the sorting action of the flood in animal survival paradigms.

However - trying to figure out how to prop up the junk-science myths of evolutionism is not the topic of this thread - no even the very enjoyable subject of chopping them down -

For this subject we just look at the MAGNITUDE of doctrinal error in evolutionism (the atheist's one great hope for the doctrine on origins) - as compared to any other doctrinal error in christianity. And we must assume for the sake of the topic - that indeed evolutionism is an error.

Leave the defense of the error of evolutionism to another thread.

So in the case of JW's - are they farther away doctrinally than the evolutionist Christian - from the true acceptance of the Creator, of The Creator's Word and of His love, justice and mercy in the creation of life as well as the fall of man and the atoning sacrifice of Christ?

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by KenH:
Evolutionist mythology requires death. Death entered the world because of sin. There was no death until man sinned. Therefore, one cannot hold to evolutionist mythology and have any kind of reasonable Biblical theology at the same time because he would be saying that God lied when He told us that death was the result of sin.

I will believe God, not the evolutionist mythologists.

Click to expand...

AGreed. However this also does not get to the question posed in the opening post.

For the sake of this thread "we START" with the assumption that the religion of evolutionism is as wrong as any other Christian doctrinal error that you may be aware of ...

The question here is - given that assumption -- how do the doctrinal errors of evolutionism (the one great hope for atheists on the doctrine of origins) - compare to other errors in Christian doctrine that you are aware of?

In Christ,

Bob

"Answer - The combination of turbidity current action and the sorting action of the flood in animal survival paradigms."



If you just understood just how wrong that statement is.

So why are similar animals not sorted in similar ways? Why are related animals orted in a means that makes them look like they evolved? Why are most fossils found to be buried in conditions that look nothing like a global flood? Like Ash!

Let's see. We have the whole world covered in water. So we then drain a little piece. We then put a whole thriving ecosystem in place overnight. We then bury this in volcanic ash. We then have the whole area covered in flood water again.



Plonk!

Come back when you have a more complete answer. I will then make a more complete mess of it.

So going along with the OP - evolutoinism is error and the Word of God regarding origins is literally true.

That meeans that the "error" - describes God as "Creating" via death,destruction,disease, starvation and extinction - INSTEAD of the CORRECT view "AND GOD SAID let there BE - and evening and morning WERE the nth-day".

One method uses NO disease, carnage, starvation and suffering to "bring about" living fully formed species and the other view relies upon such destructive "dark" means almost exclusively.

On view RELIES on the DETAILS of God's Word on this topic - and other gives us the right to delete details as it pleases the athiest-evolutionist views on origins (which for the sake of this thread we assume to be wrong).

On view has God creating peacefully, and lovingly all life - and then mankind and then in perfect fellowship with mankind - calling man to obedience and to REMAIN in the peaceful, sinless, happy, loving, kind, selfless state he was created in.

The other model has mankind in a bloodly struggle for survival through death, carnage, disease, extermination, extinction, hardship and FINALLY man comes to the point of standing on his own two feet only to hear God says "WELL - mankind has finally made it! NOW let me see - I think I had ONE MORE thing in store for him... hmmm let me see... what was it?... OH YES! That's Right! I remember! I now need to torment them all in hell!! -- Hey guess what? all of you newly evolved humans -- you now need a Savior!"

Does evolutionism's view of God create a "bigger gap" between truth and error than the other doctrinal errors in Christianity?

In Christ,

Bob

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] "Answer - The combination of turbidity current action and the sorting action of the flood in animal survival paradigms."

If you just understood just how wrong that statement is.

So why are similar animals not sorted in similar ways?

Click to expand...

Create a World Wide flood and watch what happens. In the mean time - stop pretending like you have data - where you have nothing.

The evolutionist's "speculation in a factless vaccuum" works well at their seminars - but is not as successful among most Christians trusting in the Creator's "Account" of origins.

In the mean time - propping up the failed "puzzles" of evolutionism - is not the subject of this thread.

Here we want to know just HOW the error of evolutionism would compare to other doctrinal errors in Christianity. (And "yes" we assume it to be error for the sake of the discussion - to answer the question).

It will require some "actual" objective thought to participate in this question - so I know this will be challenging.

Please take another run at it.

In Christ,

Bob