Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

I would agree with you here Mark. I can’t tell the difference between a self proclaimed atheist or freethinker and a few that post here, in regards to evolution and ‘bible difficulties or contradictions’, their arguments are the exact same arguments.

Most areas of science don’t concern themselves with ‘evolution’ anyway. Science is so incredibly technical these days that it’s the science philosophers who take up the arguments against creationist and the bible. Is the origin of life testable and repeatable in a lab? Nope, but their assumptions are taught in our public schools as fact.

 

Mark

I think we both agree on what the verses mean. The point is that people in the past, and some people yet today, take a literal reading of the earth "cannot be moved: and the sun "hasteth to his place where he arose" as indicating a sun that moves around a still earth. We know that is not the case but can you not see how people would make that mistake in a literal reading?

To follow up on the other part of your response... From what I could find, the key word here is "chuwg" (sometimes I found it spelled "hug"). From Strong's the primary meaning is "circle" with other definitions being "circuit", "compass", or "vault." The reference seems to be to a circular (not round, that is a seperate word!) world. This is supported by referencing Proverbs 8:27 where the writer speaks of the circle of the earth being set into the face of the deep. I followed this by trying to find out what the ancient Jewish view of the earth was. From what I could find, and ancient Jews (and the other groups in the Middle East for that matter) viewed the world as being flat and circular, surrounded by water (the deep), and covered with a vault or dome of the heavens. Putting it together with other verses that also suggest similar ideas, the conclusion would be that the verse in question (Isaiah 40:22) is the writer making reference to the world as he knew and understood it. To take that this verse indicates the earth in orbit around the sun, or even that it suggests a spherical earth, is to read into it modern understandings that were not intended by the writer. The writer was only indicating what he thought he knew, that is that the earth is flat and circular and surrounded by water. The Scripture was never intended to be a scientific text and this is the difficulties that arise when you try and force it to support your own opinions. It is also another example of where you will ignore the clear meaning of the writer and reinterpret the verse to fit what you believe. But then you go on to use words like fools, heretics and wicked to describe us doing the same thing when it disagrees with your opinion on the matter.

 

A few random responses.

Terry, I really do wish you could convince me. It is never comfortable having to abandon the literal reading you have always accepted and believed. But I find the evidence of an old earth, an old universe, and of common descent to be quite convincing. I want you to change my mind. I ask for you to bring facts from nature that shows a young earth. I ask for you to give better explanations for the data I find so convincing. But you are unable and unwilling to even engage in that effort. I can only assume that is because you cannot produce the evidence. Instead, you choose to insult those with whom you disagree and to question the salvation and motivations of your oponents. You can always justify the places where you abandon the plain reading but I am an evil person for doing so.

You are the one suggesting that if your interpreation is wrong that it means God lied, not me. Dangerous position to put your faith in as the evidence from all the various sciences mounts.

Why the hostility towards education? Some people are genuinely interested in science and chose to spend their life pursuing a career in one of its fields. What is wrong with that? Does it threaten you that the more one learns about evolution, the more likely one is to see it as the successful scientific theory it is? Does it threaten you that the more one learns about the universe, the more likely one is to understand the incredible age of the universe? Does it threaten you that the more one learns about geology, the more likely one is to see the true age of the earth? I have never understood what the problem is with people becoming educated. It is helpful in life to be educated in some field and by definition, once you are educated in that field, you are more knowledgable about that subject that most other people. Not smarter, just having a better ungerstanding of a given subject. Is there not something that you know better than most people? Is there a problem with that?

and

Come on, indead. You should have known you were committing a slippery slope fallacy when you used the term slippery slope. (There is also a false dilemma in the first quote. Evidence to prove creationism would not negate the faith required to believe in the resurrection and such.) You know that we would not profess to be Baptist and Christians if we did not have faith in the virgin birth and in the resurrection. These are things for which it would be impossible to ever prove or disprove through observation. They are miracles. But a young earth would give one set of data to observe while an old earth would give a different set. This is not a matter of faith or salvation, this is a matter of being able to look around with your eyes and to believe what you see. In the case of evolution you see a nested hierarchy of species, you see genetic data that agrees with the hierarchy, you see a fossil record that shows the change of species with time and so on. I should not believe my lying eyes because to do so and disagree with your opinions makes me a heretic?

Oh yeah, all that other science. For instance, I do research into a novel coal gasifier. Nothing to do woth evolution there. But there is that matter of geology. Those different kinds of coals we test are found in different locations and have much different chemical properties depending on when they were buried. Maybe there is a connection there.

I guess you are one of those who thinks that only some of chemistry and some of physics are the only "real" sciences. Everything else, if it challenges your worldview, is some sort of fake science. Therefore paleontologists and biologists and astronomers and such are not "real" scientists. They are just in some sort of conspiracy. They do not really believe what they report. It is just some grand effort to destroy the church. They are all wicked, heretical, foolish liars. Especially the Christian scientists.

You have made it so clear that you have made your mind up, that you do not know anything about the science of the matter, and that you have no interest or intent to become the least bit familiar with the material that I am not sure what the point of discussion is with your ilk. You will not listen to any amount of reasoning no matter how well grounded.

Proverbs 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
(KJV)

 

Education is a wonderful thing; if there is wisdom to use it! I feel sure that from a pure "KNOWLEDGE" standpoint, the devil has it all over any multi-PhD'd individual that exists, and yet we know where he (devil) stands re: God!

The point is that education is a tool, not and end in itself; shouldn't be anyway!

Any fool can be educated beyond his intelligence; (his capacity to wisely use that knowledge).

(This is just an observation, not a slam on any individual unless one feels that the shoe fits! )

 

Our great spiritual fathers certainly affirmed that a plain text reading was intended. John Calvin, Martin Luther, the Catholic church all spoke against the Copernican model of the solar system as heresy. So I wonder, where did this transition occur from viewing these particular Scriptures as a literal scientific statement about the relationship of the sun and earth, to your nonliteral interpretation? Why do you believe the Bible is only describing the sun from a human observational perspective?

 

Brett:
It is amazing how quick those who do not believe what the Bible says are to accuse someone of constructing "straw men" when their lack of faith is reveled. You either believe what God said, or you don't.

As far as the first 11 chapters of Genesis being metaphorical, get real! I guess we must depend on you and your superior intellect to tell us what parts of the Bible are literally true and which parts God resorted to using metaphorical language.

Even someone as intelligent as you should be able to see that if God wanted to metaphorically refer to evolutionary creation, He certainly would have described it in a manner different than making up a fairy tale about a mythological Adam and Eve, which is what you seem to believe.

I believe that God said exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said. If you are willing to take what a bunch of atheistic scientist say over what God says, at least be man enough to say it outright. Quit trying to hide behind "science, falsely called so."

 

Terry,

This is how I view it: I start with the belief that everything in the Bible is true as literally written. But, if there is enough evidence to challenge that belief for a given topic (Creation, for example), then is it not possible that this particular thing is meant to be metaphorical? As travelsong stated, earlier Christian leaders thought that heliocentricity was wrong; if the "literal meaning" of the passages cited by UTEOTW isn't an unmoving Earth, the where would they get that idea?

I think this certainly lends support to the notion that some things in the bible are metaphorical. As Christians, the only things that we can argue are metaphorical are the ones where sufficient evidence contradicts a literal interpretation. This is the case with both heliocentricity and evolution.

Why do you think that God would not have put metaphors in the bible? Why must it be taken completely literally everywhere, even when the vast majority of the evidence would contradict a literal interpretation?

 

You, obviously, view it wrong. God did not evolve Adam and Eve from a amoeba to an ape to a man. To say that He did is a insult to God.

What, do you think that for God to create man the way the Bible says in Genesis is too difficult for God? Wake up!

 

More strawmen. When did I ever say that God was incapable of creating humans in their present state? Never! God can do anything who wants; what God can do has absolutely NOTHING to do with what he did. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that he created us using evolution. Your incredibly stupid strawman arguments are annoying, and deliberately misreprenting my position is no different than lying. You're the one who needs to "wake up", and when you do, may I suggest actually addressing my posts instead of some made-up posts that are easier to debunk?

It's easy to say someone's wrong if you claim that someone said God is incapable of making humans in their present form. Too bad nobody said it.

 

Trotter,

Saying that the 6 day creation is symbolic does not invalidate Genesis. The bible is rich in symbolism.

The problem for us is that if God's created science indicates long ages ie millions of years are we saying God must have stuffed up in not making 6K years obvious ?

If its a test of faith then its a confusing one. Why 'plant' evidence to contradict the Bible. Why not make it overwhelmingly obvious that is was 6K years ?

Trotter, buddy we need to be so careful here. Remember many people beleive God spoke to them that the - earth was flat, centre of the Universe/Solar System, that anaesthetics for women in childbirth was wrong, that only a wizard inspired by the devil could produce a magnifying glass....etc etc.

If God has given us an understanding of his universe through science , his word in the Bible rich in symbolic image, I don't see how it is heretical to say his science indicates long ages inferring a symbolism of days in Genesis.

Retreating into the 'we are the only faithful, enlightened ones ' is hubris at worst and dangerously dogmatic at best.

Why deny the evidence ? The evidence is not at odds with God, only our interpretation of God's word.

 

Hi Brett,

Yes I can well understand your frustration at being misrepresented by these strawmen techniques. Seems to be a hallmark of a significant number ( but not all ) YEC's. Most unworthy at best.

I take the view that God created Man/Woman 6K years odd ago but the earth is millions of years old ? I don't take to the apes to us evolution as the links aren't there in spite of the best efforts of the biological evolutionists. Yes I know abscence of proof is not proof of abscence but its my perspective.

Any thoughts ?

Hang in there Brett, sometimes fundamentalists are like liberals they feel they don't think. Sad but true. But I'm no angel either so perhaps I shouldn't talk !

 

UTEOTW, or anyone else sharing his belief on a common ancestor.
When you say common ancestor, what exactly do you mean? Monkeys, chimps? Please explain. Just because we have similar DNA and the vitamin C evidence proves nothing. Do you really think God was supposed to create mankind with absolutely nothing in common with the animals? That is silly to think otherwise, we and animals are living organisms and only makes sense to have some things in common or a lot in primates since they share similar DNA.
As for the common ancestor thing I believe that sort of but I call him a common creator.
So if you believe we came from primates that looked like monkeys, do you believe God is some hairy looking ape since we are created in his image?

What do you guys think of this website on evolution?
EVOLUTION
Sorry to be a little off topic but the common ancestor is the only thing that stuck in my head and plus I don’t know enough to prove or disprove your theory on old earth.

 

Well this has gone on long enough. Brett, and the others here who hold to evolution, you are free to believe what ever you want. However, that works both ways. I still will maintain that anyone who believes in evolution is a fool, but the world is full of fools, so you certainly will have plenty of company.

I will continue to believe that God is able to say what he means and that he did exactly what Genesis says when he created Adam as an adult human in the garden of Eden.

Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie , we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: (KJV)

 

Matthew 16:24

I think this thread has finally run its course, but I will try to answer your questions before it is abondoned.

First, on the idea of common descent I think all species share a common ancestor. To take humans specifically, I think you can go back through a series of ever broader common ancestors. Hominids is a term that usually means upright walking apes like humans. (I say usually because the definitions of some of these terms are in flux.) The first conclusive hominid was the genus Austalopithicus, although some suggest an older creature, Sahelanthropus. When you see a linup of skulls of the various human ancestors right on up through "cave men" you will generally be seeing Austalopithicus and / or its decendants. It would be the last common ancestor (LCA) of all the human like apes.

Apes are believed to have evolved from a creature called Proconsul who lived about 20 million years ago. So Proconsul would be the LCA of gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, humans and gibbons. To go back further, the LCA of the apes and the monkeys would have been an early primate living about the time of the end of the dinosaurs. All placental mammals can be traced back to a creature like Eomaia, believed to be among the first placental mammals. It is even possible to group all of the land vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) into a large group with a LCA of something like Acanthostega, a fish who none the less had developed limbs complete with a humerous, radius and ulna plus fingers and joints similar enough to the way the terrestrial vertebrates are arranged.

I hope that lets you know at least what I think. There is not enough room here to go into detail about the evidence for all that. I can also see how the scattered bits that get presented in a thread such as this can be less than convincing. It is so much easier to slander your opponent and make simplistic, shallow arguments than it is to go into detail, especially when dealing with a subject that your audience may be inclided at first with which to disagree. The common designer line of reasoning is used so much, that I have tried to focus here on genetic aspects that are not expressed. That is, the bits of DNA that do not code for used proteins though we can see how in a different state that would have been useful. That these copying errors are the same between creatures is evidence of common descent, but it is only a small part of the story. The other bit to add is that it is not necessarily creatures that look alike that share similar DNA, as a blow against reusing code from a common designer. The DNA relationships are aligned with the family type relationships among various species.

If you are really interested in this, my best suggestion would be to go and find material from both sides and read it with an open mind. It might even be necessary to go back and read some basic science material to get up to speed on the basics before looking into the details. Go to the bookstore and ask someone there to help you pick out a good book on evolution. Get someone around her to recomend a good book on creationism. There are plenty of websites out there. There is one called True Origin that deals decently with a wide range of topics from a creationist perspective. It is a response to Talk Origins , a website full of evolutionary material. One nice thing about Talk Origins is that they link a lot of material to creationist sites which makes it easy to find material from both sides. They even have a number of pages where an evolutionist and a creationists will debate and respond to one another about a topic for several generations with links to everything. Just have an open mind and see which side make the most convincing arguments. For me, I went exclusively with creationist material at first and what I found so disturbed me and angered me with respect to the overtly dishonest tactics they used that it became much easier to look at the evolutionary material with an open mind although I had always considered them a bit nutty. Other creationist sites you might want to consider are Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They both have their plusses and minuses, but they are decent for what they try and do. Also notice how the evolutionist pages are not afraid to post links to creationist sites but that you will essentially never see a link to evolutionary material from a creationist site.

As far as the image of God... I believe that is meant to be more in the spiritual sense. We are in the image of God in that we can have abstract thoughts, we know good from evil, and so on. I think it is a bit prideful to anthropomorphize God to look like us. I really dislike the caricature of God as this grey bearded old man. Besides, we look like apes.

I took a brief look at the website you listed and that is the kind of stuff to stay away from. Even if you are looking for pro creationist material, there is much better out there. Just a guy making some laughable and unsubstantiated assertions. One of my favorites is how as he claims that evolution over billions of years is not possible, he is forced to claim extremely rapid evolution of whole new body types after the fall to get carnivores and animals with defensive measures such as poison spines. Sometimes I wonder if these people have really thought what they are saying through. If they have, you have to question their honesty.

I'll leave you with an anecdote. Back when Galileo invented the telescope, one of his first discoveries was the four large moons of Jupiter. He then had conclusive proof of objects orbiting something other than the earth, which was against the gocentrist teachings of the church then. Not only was he labeled a heretic, but many of the church leaders refused to even look through a telescope at the moons for themselves. I am reminded of such people by the deniers of evolution today. It challenges their worldview and as such, they refuse to even take a look at the evidence. Look for yourself, be hoonest with yourself. If you take a good hard look and can be convinced of the facts either way, great. I hope you would see the truth of evolution. But if you remain unconvinced, I would like you to at least be able to make a convincing case of why you are YEC.

 

Is this in the first few chapters of Genesis? I missed that part. All I've seen is "in the beginning God-----"

Seriously, why is it so hard to accept that you evolutionists and/or old earthers just may be "INTERPRETING" the evidence wrong; just as you accuse us of "INTERPRETING" Genesis wrong??

It always seems to come back to that old argument that "if the earth is NOTmillions/billions of years old, God just tried to fool us!!"

Is the earth ancient? I don't know, but there seems to be a gray area between science and the bible on this point, so I prefer to take the Bible's word over science. If when I get to Heaven I'm proven wrong, no big deal. I'll just say "I stand corrected."

Is evolution correct; ie: man coming from the amoeba via apes? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! The Bible states very clearly that God CREATED Adam (from the dust of the ground - Gen 1:27; 2:7). No gray area here, so once again I'll trust the Bible over science's obvious faux paux!!

Does this make me one of those "IGNORANT FUNDAMENTALISTS" or whatever the derogatory term that was used??? If so, well so be it!

 

How about the wine at the wedding at Cana?

Wine implies a planting, a growing season, a harvesting, a processing, an aging, etc...

In other words Jesus made instantly what normally takes a season and a half or more to make.
The "best wine" is usually several years old.

Did He fool them at the wedding?

How about the fish at the feeding of the 5000?
What evolution did they go though?

Were those who ate the fish fooled or filled?

HankD

 

just-want-peace

I haven't been trying to imply that any of you are ignorant, stupid people. Nor that there is anything wrong with being a fundementalist. If fact, I think that most of the people here are fairly smart people. It is difficult to engage repeatedly in a reasoned dialogue without having some degree of intelligence.

If you look at my above post, what I really want is for people to not be ignorant of the facts surrounding evolution. I do not mean that in a derogatory way, I mean that in the simple defintion of being uininformed on a given topic. All I really want is for everyone interested to take a good hard look at the facts. I think that if you look objectively, you will find that the case for evolution makes much sense. But if you do not, that's fine with me. I want you to come away from the experience with the ability to make a reasoned, informed presentation of why you think the way you do. If you look back through this thread, the YEC position has been proclaimed by people who admit that they have never looked at the facts, who have no interest of even looking, and can only slander those who have. They have been completely unable to put forth any facts from nature to support a young earth nor have they been able to contradict any tenets of an old earth. They may not be ignorant, but they are ignorant of the facts on the subject which they have chosen to discuss. And I find that quite strange.

Hank

You're listing miracles. What evidence could I find today that Jesus turned water to wine? None. We take it on faith. However, if the earth really is old, it would leave a set of indications different from that of a young earth. To me, the evidence seems to indicate a very old earth and a very old universe. Maybe you can explain some of it away with an appearance of age. But not most of it.

 

We are going to have disgreements about the age of the earth and evolution from now until the second coming. So what do we do about that?

- Do we kick the rascals out? Take church action and remove them from our lists?(those who are on the wrong side of the issue)

- Do we acknowledge our differences and agree to get along, meanwhile having fun posting on forums like this?

- Do we simply restrict the rights of those on the wrong side, keeping them from being pastors, SS teachers, whatever?

- By what objective means do we decide who is on the right side for the purposes of taking any of the actions we might take above?

 

Paul

I really think this has a lot of parallels to the revolutions caused by Copernicus ans Galileo. And I do think that one day it will be sorted out and consensus reached. There will be a few dissenters, there always are. I also think it will take a very long time, at least another century.

Having said that, I think the key thing is that we all learn to disagree peaceably. If you cannot stay calm and reasonable, this probably is not the discussion for you. It is a fun topic to discuss. I have been forced to educate myself on a wide range of topics to be able to follow and participate in what is going on. But we must remember the ties that bind us and not let disagreement over this become a devisive issue. But it must be discussed and worked out. It is important.

I think how to handle the disputes is really up to the locals. If you feel as strongly as some people do on this issue and you are in leadership position, you probably should not allow someone who is going to overtly and publicly disagree have a leadership position. Too much potential for trouble, conflict and strife. Outside of that, I do not see a reason to let people who hold one position or another be banned from being deacons or Sunday school teachers or whatever. So long as they meet the general requirements and that it is not a person who will cause undue strife, this should not be a litmus test for leadership. And you certainly should not kick them out of your church. If you think they are so wrong, educate them. Kindly!

 

I'de vote for this but what does the Lord think?

There are problems such as the question concerning death entering the universe through "Adam", Jesus endorsing "male and female" creation, Adam being called a real, specific and identifiable person in the NT, etc, etc...

HankD