Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[Revmitchell]

So in other words, man made up the stories but were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit didn't inspire WHAT they wrote? So man decided to write fiction instead of truth as the Word of God?

When you start with science and then look to scripture that is where it leads.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I want to thank those who stepped in for me while I was out at VBS. It's been crazy but blessed days this week!

The issue that I have is to say that it is placing God in a box when we take Him at His word. He has told us how the world began - yet it's "limiting" God when we say that is how He did it. It's like saying that I'm limiting McDonald's when I say that I read that the Big Mac is made with two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun and so that's how they make it. How can it be limiting when the One who tells us how it was done already limited the way it was done? God could have made silly putty and made the earth that way - He absolutely could have created the world through evolution. But He told us He created it differently - in the way that the creation account is given in Genesis.

The issues that I see with believing in God - and not believing the Genesis account are as follows:

1) Death had to enter the world in a different way than God tells us. We're told that death is a result of sin - but if evolution is true, sin didn't enter the world until later - so where did death come from?

2) Where did sin come from? If "Adam" represents early mankind, and "Eve" represents early womankind, where did sin come from? God tells us in the Bible - but now we can't trust that? How do we know that there even IS sin?

3) It places doubts on God's Word and what He tells us. We begin to doubt the creation account. Then we doubt the flood. Then we doubt the story of Moses and the Israelites. How do we then separate out the story of Jesus in the Bible and say that is true? How do we pick and choose??

Now that is a decent rebuttal and I'll have to get back to you because I'm away until tomorrow. But at least this is a better argument!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When you start with science and then look to scripture that is where it leads.

When you look at facts where do you end up?

 

[Revmitchell]

When you look at facts where do you end up?

Science is not necessarily fact and even facts have to be interpreted by something. Scripture must be interpreted by scripture not science. But thanks for the honesty.

 

[Darron Steele]

So in other words, man made up the stories but were inspired to write by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit didn't inspire WHAT they wrote? So man decided to write fiction instead of truth as the Word of God?

When you start with science and then look to scripture that is where it leads.

When you look at facts where do you end up?]

Thinkingstuff: from the looks of things, "facts" does not include Scripture.

Is that really what you think?

 

[Johnv]

Science is not necessarily fact and even facts have to be interpreted by something.

That's true. Conversely, scripture is not necessarily fact, and even scripture nees to be interpreted by something (generally, the intended context of the author).

Scripture must be interpreted by scripture not science.

If scripture should not to be interpreted by science, then it stands to reason that science should not be interpreted by scripture.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
If scripture should not to be interpreted by science, then it stands to reason that science should not be interpreted by scripture.

You might say that if
a) you did not believe the Bible, or
b) you were not a Christian.

 

[Johnv]

You might say that if
a) you did not believe the Bible, or
b) you were not a Christian.

So much for engaging in respectful discussion. Would anyone else like to call my salvation into question?

 

[Darron Steele]

So much for engaging in respectful discussion. Would anyone else like to call my salvation into question?

It just seemed odd that a person who believes the Bible would make a comment like you did.

A person who believes the Bible would not have any doubt that all truth should conform to the Bible.

The other type of person who would be comfortable with the comment you made is a non-Christian.

Maybe you are a Christian who does not believe the Bible. I have known some good ones. They are out there, and you might be one for all I know.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, but your comment honestly and truly made you appear to fit into one of those two categories. That is with good reason -- take a good look at what you posted. I did not expect you to take my reaction to your comment personally.

 

[Johnv]

It just seemed odd that a person who believes the Bible would make a comment like you did.

That's what religious leaders told Jahannes Kepler as they persecuted him. He didn't believe scripture was intended to be a litmus device for science, and viewed such an attitude as a perversion of God's Word. History would prove that to be correct. Galileo and Copernicus, in hypothesizing a nongeocentric universe, would be persecuted for not adhering to the established view of Psalm 104:5. Today we would find the attitudes of those who opposed them as inappropriate Christian behavior.

Maybe you are a Christian who does not believe the Bible. I have known some good ones. They are out there, and you might be one for all I know.

I am not one of those. Not in the slightest.

I did not expect you to take my reaction to your comment personally.

I did. I found it insulting, offensive, and belittling of the Brethren. However, I appreciate your explanation, and it's Oxy-DiHydride under the suspended thorughfare.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's true. Conversely, scripture is not necessarily fact,

From here out we have no common ground on which to discuss anything. Sad

 

[annsni]

That's true. Conversely, scripture is not necessarily fact, and even scripture nees to be interpreted by something (generally, the intended context of the author).

If scripture should not to be interpreted by science, then it stands to reason that science should not be interpreted by scripture.

Wait - did you really type that??

 

[pilgrim2009]

That's true. Conversely, scripture is not necessarily fact, and even scripture nees to be interpreted by something (generally, the intended context of the author).

Holy Moses.Scripture is not necessarily fact?If you said this at my Church you would be called upon to repent of this gnostic heresy or be dis-fellow-shipped until your repentance.

This is like saying Christ was not necessarily fact.

Grace and mercy you need indeed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff: from the looks of things, "facts" does not include Scripture.

Is that really what you think?

No. Facts are facts. There is no debating the existance of a fact. Science views observable phenomenon (a fact) and attempts to learn something from it to provide a general principle that can be repeated. If, for instance, we can determine whether Job existed (we can't one way or another its just an example) or not how does that affect scripture. Lets continue the example and say Job never existed. Does that make the scripture to be untrue? No. But for a literalist it does. And their faith is challenged. However, maybe Job was a morality play in the classical style of play (like the greeks had) where there were long monologues expressing an idea. Is the Idea then false? No. but to a literalist it would be. Thats the danger I see in viewing the creation account literally. I've seen writings of both the old earth view and the 6 day creation view and the evidence supports the latter rather than the former. Dinosaurs cannot be explained satisfactorily by the 6 day creation account nor in the Noah story. Nor in the volcanic dating of rocks or in the changes of the earths magnetic field and evidence in human pottery nor in a multitude of other things. So its not that I don't believe scritpure is accurate. I do. I just don't believe the creation account is meant to be taken as literal as here. Especially when I consider all the different literary types that make up the bible and the cultural context in which it was writen.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Annsi,

I said I would get back and so I am.

1) Death had to enter the world in a different way than God tells us. We're told that death is a result of sin - but if evolution is true, sin didn't enter the world until later - so where did death come from?

Often people have an Either/or mentality when I or anyone disagrees with the literal 6 day interpretation account in scripture. That is a falicous view. My question is what death? Clearly there are two types physical death and spiritual death. God told Adam in the day he ate of the tree he would die. But Adam did not die until 930 years later. However, we note an immediate reaction in Adam. He realized he was naked and put together some leaves. So it would seem in the day of the sin Adam spiritually died as evidence by his behavior. So I don't disagree with scripture on this point. Note if nothing died (physically in Adams day) you would have ecological chaos. So your question begins with a false premise. You're equating physical death with spiritual death.

2) Where did sin come from? If "Adam" represents early mankind, and "Eve" represents early womankind, where did sin come from? God tells us in the Bible - but now we can't trust that? How do we know that there even IS sin?

This question makes no sense to me. Sin came from Adams disobedience. There aren't two kinds Mankind and Womankind. Just one kind. Humanity.

3) It places doubts on God's Word and what He tells us. We begin to doubt the creation account. Then we doubt the flood. Then we doubt the story of Moses and the Israelites. How do we then separate out the story of Jesus in the Bible and say that is true? How do we pick and choose??

I don't doubt Gods word. I believe I'm taking it in context. As I mentioned before I think the literalist places questions on God's word more than I. For instance Mormons. They believe the book of mormon enphatically. Now when I bring up the fact that there is no archelogical evidence in North America to meet the assertions of the book of mormon they are at an impasse and must question the reliability of their book. Because they are up against a fact. I believe that if we ever had evidence that provided no doubt to an older earth literalist would discredit science (this being dishonest and disingenous) or question their own faith. Either course is self destructive.

 

[Johnv]

Holy Moses.Scripture is not necessarily fact?...
This is like saying Christ was not necessarily fact.

What a completely untrue statement. In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

Even in books that are intended accounts facts do not necessarily line up (which is not a problem for the believer, because they're not meant to). For example, when Jesus was crucified, Matthew says he was given vinegar, while Mark says he was given wine with myrrh. According to Matthew, Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", Luke says his last words were "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", and John says his last word were "It is finished". When he was mocked and given a robe, Matthew says the robe was scarlet, while John says it was purple. At Jesus' tomb after the resurrection, Matthew records one angel, Mark records a young man, Luke records two men, and John records two angels.

Now, are these minor divergences important to the believer? No, because they're not important to the context of each account, and don't detract from scripture's inerrancy at all.

 

[pilgrim2009]

What a completely untrue statement. In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

Even in books that are intended accounts facts do not necessarily line up (which is not a problem for the believer, because they're not meant to). For example, when Jesus was crucified, Matthew says he was given vinegar, while Mark says he was given wine with myrrh. According to Matthew, Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", Luke says his last words were "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", and John says his last word were "It is finished". When he was mocked and given a robe, Matthew says the robe was scarlet, while John says it was purple. At Jesus' tomb after the resurrection, Matthew records one angel, Mark records a young man, Luke records two men, and John records two angels.

Now, are these minor divergences important to the believer? No, because they're not important to the context of each account, and don't detract from scripture's inerrancy at all.

According to your faith let it be unto you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What a completely untrue statement. In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

Even in books that are intended accounts facts do not necessarily line up (which is not a problem for the believer, because they're not meant to). For example, when Jesus was crucified, Matthew says he was given vinegar, while Mark says he was given wine with myrrh. According to Matthew, Jesus' last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", Luke says his last words were "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit", and John says his last word were "It is finished". When he was mocked and given a robe, Matthew says the robe was scarlet, while John says it was purple. At Jesus' tomb after the resurrection, Matthew records one angel, Mark records a young man, Luke records two men, and John records two angels.

Now, are these minor divergences important to the believer? No, because they're not important to the context of each account, and don't detract from scripture's inerrancy at all.

Bully!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(thats classical american for approval)

 

[DHK]

What a completely untrue statement. In some places, the authors intended to record factual statements, but in others, the authors did not have that intent at all. There are numerous books/passages in scrupture that were not written with the intent of being fact. Revelation, for example, was not intended to be taken as fact, let alone to be taken literally (unless you believe there will be a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns). Jesus' parables were not intended to be taken as factual. Song of Solomon is not intended to be a factual account.

What is science? Science is knowledge. It is knowledge gained by observation; classified in an orderly manner.
The most important characteristic of science is that it needs an observer. If there is on observer it is not science. Science is knowledge gained by observation.

That puts all of evolution in the realm of faith or another religion.
There was no one around to observe the "big bang theory."
There was no one around to observe the creation of the world.
There was no one around to observe intermediary species--we have no records of such, and we have no such examples today if it were true. Can you produce such a "half man/half ape" intermediary species. If evolution were true there should be millions of them on the earth today. The fact is that there is not a one. And there was no one to observe it taking place.

Science is observation.
Evolution has no observer; no observation. It is a religion, a fairy tale.
It take more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in the God of the Bible who was present at the creation of the world, for he himself created it, and wrote down the account of it through men, by giving them an inspired revelation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What is science? Science is knowledge. It is knowledge gained by observation; classified in an orderly manner.
The most important characteristic of science is that it needs an observer. If there is on observer it is not science. Science is knowledge gained by observation.

That puts all of evolution in the realm of faith or another religion.
There was no one around to observe the "big bang theory."
There was no one around to observe the creation of the world.
There was no one around to observe intermediary species--we have no records of such, and we have no such examples today if it were true. Can you produce such a "half man/half ape" intermediary species. If evolution were true there should be millions of them on the earth today. The fact is that there is not a one. And there was no one to observe it taking place.

Science is observation.
Evolution has no observer; no observation. It is a religion, a fairy tale.
It take more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in the God of the Bible who was present at the creation of the world, for he himself created it, and wrote down the account of it through men, by giving them an inspired revelation.

Not true DHK. Has anyone seen an atom? No, but it can be derived at scientifically and have testable results. Thus we know atoms exist.