Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

Travel song,
I am surpirised you listed that site here. I only read a couple paragraphs but that was enough to realize that the website is a mockery to God. Also, it took several passages out of context. Heck, I could do that and come up with some wild stuff.

LOL, I read some more while writing this and this boy couldn't interpret the Bible if he tried.

Does the owner of the website even believe in Jesus?
If not, that is a shame that a professing Christian would provide that link to an unbelievers website.

[ November 20, 2003, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Matthew 16:24 ]

 

If that is your conclusion then I am positive you haven't read any of it. The opening disclaimer states quite clearly that neither Christianity or those who regard the Bible as inspired are under attack. That's quite a statement from someone who is very likely not religious.

Agreed, but you will have this when the unsaved interpret Scripture. This of course does not constitute a mockery of God however, just error. Did you happen to read any of the rest of the site? I would say 90% of it is describing observable evidence of the natural world.

How so? I happen to agree with him. As Doug pointed out, what this site makes evident is the damage YEC's are causing. Here we have intelligent, respectful scientists who make their living based on observable, testable evidence from numerous fields of study which demonstrate conclusively that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, and yet there are Chrisitians out their who will tell them that they need to discard their understanding, ignore the evidence, and adopt a literal understanding of the creation account in order to be saved. If anything is a mockery of God, that is.

 

Yep, it is truly an eye-opener:

2 Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
DHK

 

Care to demonstrate how that passage relates to the site I linked to DHK, or is it your intention to suggest that a retentive memory is some kind of substitute for rational thought?

 

DHK,

So there aren't any Christian scoffers ?
The "we are the only enlighened/faithful ones" mindset doesn't exist in the Christian community ?

What about the Christian scoffers who pour contempt on lots of perfectly decent people who work and research as scientists ? Who call them part of a satanic conspiracy ?

Or the Christian scoffers who persecuted the heliocentric believers eg Galileo, who refused to even look through an astronomical telescope in case it rocked their narrow interpretation of the Bible ?

It might be worth remembering that flat earth Christians use that very verse to condemn you !

I have an atheist friend whom I debate frequently. He said to me " you know Doug you can use the Bible to justify anything", ever wondered about that ?

Why did God give us all that evidence pointing to an older than 10K year Universe ? Just to decieve us ?

 

Jeremiah brought a similar charge against God.

Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

BTW Did Jesus deceive the people at the wedding at Cana when He gave them instant wine (grape juice with apparent age) which usually takes at least a year to produce (plant-germinate-cultivate-harvest-squeeze-age)?

How about the loaves and fishes? Did he knead the dough, bake the bread, grow the fishes from eggs-minnows, etc...

What if you find out in glory that the apparent age theory is true rather that the theory of evolution?

HankD

 

Like I said I only read a couple of paragraphs and that was enough for me to come to a conclusion. Yes, I did read the disclaimer, so if I said in my posts "the following is not intended as an attack upon the evolutionists" and then I say only an idiot would believe in evolution. Would you feel attacked in anyway?

There are better sites for evolutionist than that one that does not mock the Bible

I am not sure of the actual percentage of it was observable, theory, or creationist are silly, but I read enough to know that this website offended me. Not because it represented the so called facts but it took several passages out of context UTEOW has posted several replies about evolution and not one of them offended (from memory) me like this website did.

What damage is YEC’s causing anyway? We are taking God’s word as literal and you as figurative, right? Two different views on the Bible. I don’t recall questioning your salvation, but I hope that is not the case because if that is the case only few will enter into the God’s kingdom. The only thing I questioned is, I, myself cannot believe in evolution and God. The two IMO contradict and oppose each other, but that is just me. Obviously people think they can and one of us is wrong. Hopefully salvation is not dependent on it but that is not my decision to make.

 

Matthew 16:24

Please look at these sites for some examples -
What Harm is done by Creation Science?

DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION QUOTES

YEC's ( not all ) present a false dichotemy -
believe a literal 6 days or your a back slider/unsaved ?/cant believe anything in the bible/etc

Former YEC and geologist Glenn Morton was driven to the verge of atheism by YEC's of the ICR.

YEC encourages children to ignore scientific reality and believe a narrow view of the Genesis. Fine and well until they grow up and discover alternative explanations that are more convincing given the scientific evidence.

I've posted enough God bless and have a good weekend all.
Take care
Doug

 

I am going to mix a reply to the previous two posts.

I think I might take that as a compliment. Not completely sure. I do take effort to not offend but to make a strong case. I do sometimes slip towards sarcasm or to using the absurd to demonstrate the absurd. I really hope I do not offend those with whom I disagree.

To the subject though. I am not quite sure what to make of the Things Creationists Hate website. On the one hand, I think the guy puts out a lot of relevant information and ususally in a rather succinct manner. Of course that means that he is not going to far in depth on any given subject. But, despite his disclaimer, I think that his attitude could very easily turn people off. He is a bit harsh. He has a good set of information but I cannot help but to think it would be more persuasive if he let the material speak for itself. But I think he did accomplish what he was going after. Someone who already agrees should be able to appreciate the material and get a bit of a laugh out of the presnetation. I also did not personally find it offensive or blasphemous.

The harm to the spread of the Gospel is one of my main motivations for posting on this subject. I think that evolution is good science and that holding to the literal creation account, just like those before that held to geocentrism, does much to harm the image of the church and close peoples ears to our words. From the perspective of an unbeliever, you are demanding that they deny essentially ALL of modern science if they are to accept the YEC's version of the Truth.I do not think that makes us look like the bightest bulb in the box.

But I also see the poisoning of the minds of the children (and adults). To protect YEC, almost every area of science must be attacked and disparaged. They end up not trusting anything science has to offer. And I do not know how you convince a child that it is OK to grow up and be a doctor or an engineer or a biologists or an astronomer or a paleontologists or a chemist or a geologists or anything else connected to science when you have already taught them how evil and untrue everything those fields teach are.

An anecdote. There are these two guys who work in cubicles near mine. Now we do engineering research for a living. These guys are also staunch YEC and they know how I feel. If I did not know these guys were Christian, I would think they were agnostic based on their profession to have to see everything for themselves. They trust nothing in science. One the other day spoke of the scientific method as a joke. I am not sure exactly how he does his work if he feels that way abouth the scientific method. The three of us had all watched the recent Nova program on m-theory (string theory) and all they could do was laugh at it. They even fell into the YEC quote mining routine with some of the people interviewed. They have such a negative view of science. Every headline concerning anything scientific items is a good joke to them. And I think they would be happy to cut funding to most scientific endeavors. I shudder at thinking what attitudes they are imparting to their kids on science.

 

Hank
Jezus was clearly mineral.

 

In reference to you, your website, and in particular, the particular statement that you posed: “Does the teaching of YEC cause a problem for learning science in the future of today’s students?” Why not look at both sides of this question. “Does the teaching of evolution cause a problem for learning science in the future of today’s science.
In answer to that question, I will start not just with an “anecdote,” but an actual event that happened. As has already been pointed out it is not fair of anyone to question or criticize one’s personal religious beliefs. We have religious liberty in this county and it is against the law to discriminate against such. One student from a religious background that taught against the theory of evolution, and did teach YEC, sent their daughter to a secular university where, in the Biology class the professor mocked anyone who believed in Creation, tore the idea to shreds, and proceeded to demonstrate in his own biased and sarcastic way how evolution was the only possible way that the origin of the earth could have happened. This student had never been exposed to such godless teaching before. She went home and committed suicide. So much for the learning of science. BTW, that is why I personally advocate Christian schools, and send my children to Bible Colleges or Christian Universities. They are limited, but it is worth it.

A Christian’s faith is based on the Bible. It is based on the fact that the Bible is indeed the very Word of God. That is taken by faith. However it is not blind faith. It is faith that is based on historical fact. The fact is based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ—one of the most historically attested facts in history. If you do not believe me on this one point I challenge you to check out the veracity of the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is this one fact that evolutionists, as well as other religions and cults would like to do away with. As I mentioned before, if you allegorize the first two, or even the first eleven chapters of Genesis, then why not the whole gospel message? It has already been done, so don’t be so surprised. The Jehovah Witnesses have allegorized the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They don’t believe that He rose from the dead in bodily form. It was a spirit resurrection, they say. A spirit resurrection is no resurrection at all. We all have a spirit that separates from our body at the point of death. That is nothing new. A resurrection, by the very definition of the word, involves the body. The J.W.’s have allegorized this to take out the body and replace it with the spirit. Are you among those that believe this too. Why not? If you can allegorize one part of the Bible (Genesis one), then why not the Resurrection as well?
Again the faith of the Christian is based on the Word of God, and in fact that the Bible is the Word of God. Every word of it is true. That is the foundation from which we work from. It is based on the resurrection of Christ, an undeniable fact. For, “if Christ be not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain and we are most miserable.” Christ Himself attests to the validity and historicity of the Word of God, and the Old Testament in particular (including the Creation account), a number of times. His deity is demonstrated by His resurrection. The truth of His Word is demonstrated by His resurrection. This lays the foundation for our belief in Creation. You might say if it was good enough for Jesus; it is good enough for me.

First, a good many scholars have worked backwards, with dates that they do know from actual historical events verified through archeology and through history. By using the genealogies to the date of Creation Archbishop Ussher came up with the date of 4004 B.C. Since then some have found what may be “missing generations,” and some other minor discrepancies. With every possible discrepancy taken into consideration we can place the date of the earth somewhere between 4000 and 10,000 B.C. That is a sharp contrast to the billions of years that the evolutionist places it and in no way can harmonize with it. There is no possible way that one could believe in the work of God’s creation (which is to believe in God) and believe in evolution at the same time. No matter which way you look at it the two do not harmonize. Evolution is a replacement for God. It is unbelief in God. Some here may be misled, led astray, confused in the issues, but ultimately I sincerely hope that they will see the absolute truth in this matter. Evolution and belief in the Bible do not and cannot mix. Their premises are entirely different, and yet at the same time, creationism does not deny science, the scientific method (which you falsely accuse us of—slander), and is not led astray by any true science at all. In fact it encourages us to study more and more of God’s creation. You have your facts wrong. There is an increasing number of outstanding scientists, who in recent years have turned to creationism, and if not creationism at least a belief in God from the atheism that they once believed in. For example the leader of the Human Genome project is a Christian. He was not influenced by organic evolution in his research of the genome, and the study of DNA.

The Christian starts with the premise that God created all things. God was the designer of all things, and therefore that is a similar pattern throughout the animal kingdom of the way that God decided to plan his creation. There is One great Designer of this universe who out of his Sovereign grace designed the universe at His own pleasure and will.

The evolutionist starts with the premise of some primeval gasses (whose origin to this day cannot be accounted for), and some how came together and created an explosion (the Big Bang). How you get order out of chaos and defy scientific laws to get this perfect universe that we live in, we will never know, but this is the foolishness of the evolutionist, and what he must believe in. Science needs observation. Science here is out of its realm. There was no one here to observe the origin of the earth or the universe. Thus evolution has put itself in the realm of religion. It takes faith to believe in the Big Bang theory, or any other theory that deals with origins.
Only Genesis chapter one can successfully explain what happened in the creation of our world. God was there. He created all things in six days. Faith in God, the Creator is much more palatable and believable, then faith in god, the Big Bang. Either way it takes faith. Either way there was no human observer. Creation is attested by Jesus Christ, whose divinity is attested by the Resurrection. Evolution has no verifiable truth; it remains nothing more than a fairy tale with no evidence to support it at all. Evolution is outside of its realm.

And yet this evolution is taught as fact throughout public schools and secular universities. It permeates almost every science by those who push its agenda. By comparison one may liken it to today’s gay minority who have an agenda to push their agenda of teaching the homosexual lifestyle through every school and educational institution in the country. Their purpose is to re-educate, redefine marriage (as they have in Canada), legitimize legally this wicked lifestyle so that it becomes a common everyday acceptable thing in the eyes of even the most conservative Christian. They are succeeding. The evolutionist has succeeded in doing the same thing. The Bible clearly teaches against both. Our modern society clearly wants to accept both. Homosexuality is being accepted in some places on a “scientific” basis. It is all in the genes, you know. But as someone mentioned sarcastically about their two friends at work joking about “evolutionary science,” we also disdain “homosexual science.” It is not a result of science; it is a result of sin. Evolution is not the result of science; it is the result of unbelief, and a failure to study and accept the Word of God.

In every facet of science evolutionary hypotheses can be explained, by those well acquainted in their various fields, by what happened at Creation, what happened at the Flood, what happened at the tower of Babel. These three events account for most of the problems that the evolutionist has. I have read the Bible all the way through. I have read the arguments of the evolutionist in various fields. I cannot read all the material, it is too voluminous for any one person to keep up in every field of science. However, to be fair, have you read the Bible all the way through? Have you read some of the more outstanding creationists’ works such as “The Genesis Flood,” by Whitcomb and Morris? Have you taken the time to read the other side of the story?
Most of us have. Most of you (I am guessing, have not.)
Your arguments, in general, include such things as: circular reasoning, universal negatives, wide generalizations, unproven assumptions, etc. And then you have the audacity to have us accept illogical conclusions. It is no wonder that many found the website an affront to their intelligence. But when you already believe unintelligent things, you have no problem with it. “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god.”
DHK

 

One harangue alone does not drive a person to suicide. I think it is highly presumptuous to put all the blame onto this one episode in the student's life. One could equally "blame" her previous teachers for failing to give her an adequate grounding in science to withstand the event, equally groundlessly. There had to be something seriously amiss in that students life and precisely in that area where an experience of salvation and a religous background are supposed to lend one strength for the trials of life.

Your brush is again swiping to wide. I support the findings of science and I also claim Jesus as my Savior and Lord and believe in the power of the cross and His resurrection.

Didn't you say something about the evidence being for the gospel message?

Yes, when properly interpreted. The correct interpretation of the creation narrative is poetic rather than scientific.

yoo hoo - hello there - I exist! I believe God created all things, and that literally it was by means of evolution. Therefore, such a belief is possible.

A hope I certainly share.

 

I think this may have been answered before but humor me anyways, please.
When does the Bible stop being an allegory?
How do you know when it stops and starts being literal?
Only when it lines up with scientific evidence?

Hmm, for evolution to exist death must accompany it. Therefore, Jesus teaching is invalid and are two different things.
Evolution and the Bible most seriously conflict (their respective views of death, which are central to each viewpoint). If evolution (or even just the concept of an old earth, with death and fossils predating man's sin) is correct, then death is natural; death is normal; death produced man. Most importantly, in this view, death is not the penalty for sin, for it preceded man and his sin. But if death is not the penalty for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ did not pay that penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide eternal
life.

Why can't you see that?

 

Mathew, wherever death as the result of sin is spoken of in Scripture, it is ALWAYS in relation to man. There is absolutely no place in the Bible where we are told that man's penalty fell on plants and animals. Paul makes this truth astonishingly evident in Romans 5.


Jesus died for men, not animals, and not plants. To suggest that Christ's atoning work would be negated if plants and animals died before the fall is to diminish the Gospel message.

The death that we suffer is first and foremost spiritual, and the life we recieve in Christ is likewise first and foremost spiritual. Physical death is dwarfed by this reality.

 

Dear Bro Travelsong,

You said...

I disagree here Travelsong, your Romans 5 argument IMO is an argument fron silence.

Romans 5 focuses upon the sin of Adam and its results upon his descendants but is silent as to the rest of creation.

The whole sacrificial system of the Old Covenant is based upon the innocent dying as a result of someone else's sin.

Death (entropy) is implied in Romans 8.

Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Did God create the universe this way?

If so, how could a universe in the bondage of corruption groaning and travailing in pain be called "very good"?

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

What happened?

I do agree however with your excellent final statement RE: spiritual death vs physical.

They are both involved as the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ demonstrates.

HankD

 

Since Romans 5 and the rest of Scripture make no mention of the curse of sin and death spreading to the plant and animal kingdom, wouldn't an assertion which claims that God's original perfect creation suffered no death in it's entirety until Adam fell be an argument from silence?

Exactly my point. All animals are innocent because they are not under the curse of sin, they are not moral sentient beings.Ceremonial law distinguished animals as either clean or unclean, there was no moral label of righteous or unrighteous applied.

Again, this is an argument from silence.

"was made subject" indicates that it was not.

Adam and Eve were originally appointed as stewards over creation. When Adam sinned, he was sentenced to a life of labor, toil and death, and I would say since that day man has failed miserably in his role as steward over creation.

When I see the wholesale rape of earth's natural resources for material gain, I am reminded that nature is subject to futility because this is not what God intended. When I see landfills, smell sewage treatment or view a smog filled horizon, I am reminded that nature is subject to futility. This is the meaning I glean from Romans 8.

 

Dear Travelsong,

you said:

I offered Romans 8 as a scriptural explanation of entropy of which you turned the same argument back towards me.

This is a matter of opinion, "bondage to corruption, creation groaning and travailing in pain" to me is the scriptural way of describing entropy.

Even in the secular school which I attended "entropy" was referred to as the "heat death of the universe".

These things which you described did not exist when Paul wrote Romans. I do agree however that man has failed in his stewardship over the earth, but remember we were dethroned back in the garden of Eden.

Personally, I believe this is where the decay of the material universe started. At the sin of Adam when things suddenly became not "very good" and that it was not built into the original creation.

But I understand your point and it's a good one concerning man's stewardship and Romans 8.

HankD

 

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If there was any death at all before God had said this at the end of the sixth day, would he have said it? If He would have, that would make God a very cruel monster to be pronouncing such a blessing on death--calling death "very good," literally "exceedingly good."
Evolutionists who find fossils between the days, believing in the Day Age theory, find God in this way to be very very cruel. For fossils speak of living creatures. They speak of suffering, misery, and death. So God looks down and sees all the evidence of suffering, misery, and death in the world that he has created, and behold "it is very good." What a great God we have!! (Or maybe that's your idea of God, but not mine)
DHK

 

Why isn't this recorded in any of the ancient civilisations ?

Asteroid/Comet Impact causes huge devastation !

YECS' claim that all the Earths recorded geology occurred in the last 6-10K years.

Why is there no record of this event ( and subsequent ) in recorded history ?

Would we be here now if this had happened in the last 6-10k years ?

 

Why isn't what recorded in any of the ancient civilizations? Your unbelief? There are references to a world wide flood in various writings of ancients civilizations. More significant is the many modern sightings that have been seen of the Ark itself on what is considered to be Moun Ararat in Turkey. Turkish officials make it difficult for expeditions to go there apparently.
There is world-wide evidence for a world-wide flood if one wants to look at it and examine it. But "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
DHK