Belief in Evolutionism debunked by former evolutionist

[DHK]

>This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself.

And your concept of ns IS?????

Even the World Book Encyclopedia admits that "natural selection is based on great variation among closely related individuals. Most of these traits are inherited.

Again, I say unto you, far before the time of Darwin, Jacob used the processes of natural selection to produce stronger sheep for himself and weaker sheep for Laban. It is called selective breeding or cross-breeding. Farmers use these principles all the time. It is basic genetics.

 

[Revmitchell]

Changing the meaning of words to prop up "scientism" (science falsely so-called) is what I am against. I am not against true science. Natural selection is true science. Jacob used it long ago. It is not evolution; has nothing to do with evolution. However Darwin used the term in relation to his theory of evolution, something that has remained a theory to this day. Here is how it goes according to Darwin:
(From BIOLOGY: A Search for Order in Complexity. CRS [a grade 10 high school text] )

This is not natural selection. Natural selection is a scientific process in and of itself. The evolutionist wrongly uses and redefines the term for his own predetermined hypotheses. This is not science. This is not natural selection by the farthest stretch of the imagination. There are still giraffes with relatively short necks. It is a matter of genetics--genes which are inherited from generation to generation; just as there are tribes of pygmies in Africa. Genes are inherited. This is not natural selection.

There is nothing here to discuss if you are going to redefine terms to fit the evolutionary theories.

I have not redefined terms. This is known as evolution by even creation scientists. I do not get to set the terms I just use them correctly. Again you are afraid of the word "evolution" and it has no justification. There is a clear difference between natural selection and speciation. And that is where the debate lies. Not with the word evolution.

 

[Revmitchell]

reasonable point.

I commend you on your intellectual honesty. :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think you're putting God in a box because he has to act in accordance with your interpretation of scriptures rather than what is.

It is what is written. No interpretation involved.

 

[DHK]

Again you are afraid of the word "evolution"

You have made this statement more than once, as if you are acting like Mr. Freud. I have used the term "evolution" many times now. Is this not a mischaracterization on your part?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is what is written. No interpretation involved.

I could say the same about John 6

 

[billwald]

>Kind of sounds like the rolling end times theory a lot of people put out huh? When you are lacking the privilage of observation you have to draw conclusions that change as you get better information.

The context of this post is the above noted quotation from this thread to which no one objected to as being out of context:

Yup! For 40 years I listen to "Christian" radio and heard sermons about the Rapture occurring before the end of 1988 BECAUSE Jesus was going to return one generation after the establishment of Nation Israel AND a "biblical" generation is 40 years and/because the 40 (years) is the "Biblical" period of testing. I "believed it" but thanks to God's providence I wasn't sufficiently faithful that I gave away all my property to the missionaries so that we could get as many people into the lifeboat before the Rapture.

You all must be to young to remember . Now days I have read that "70 years is given to man" so the Rapture must be 1948 + 70 = 2018. Or the bad guys think that something big is happening 12/21/12 so THAT must be the date of the Rapture. Still, I recommend against selling everything you have so that more people can get into the lifeboat.

 

[Revmitchell]

You have made this statement more than once, as if you are acting like Mr. Freud. I have used the term "evolution" many times now. Is this not a mischaracterization on your part?

ummm...no. Fear does not simply impose on the ability to use it. But it does impose the ability to use it correctly. But this is a needless point. Please address the actual point of my post.

 

[DHK]

I have not redefined terms. This is known as evolution by even creation scientists. I do not get to set the terms I just use them correctly. Again you are afraid of the word "evolution" and it has no justification. There is a clear difference between natural selection and speciation. And that is where the debate lies. Not with the word evolution.

You have used the term correctly as evolutionists use the term. However the evolutionist uses the term incorrectly. This is where the Christian goes on the same slippery slope that the evolutionist has already arrived at. It was not natural selection that produced long necks in Giraffes. It was a genetic trait.
Thus the evolutionist will use his concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to eventually jump from one species to another--a totally unbiblical concept.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I could say the same about John 6

Start a thread on it. My statement was in response to the accusation that I was interpreting. My view on the Genesis account is the Bible means what it says about creation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Start a thread on it. My statement was in response to the accusation that I was interpreting. My view on the Genesis account is the Bible means what it says about creation.

You are. You are interpreting it literally. As I was with John 6 which is my point. The bible is a compilation of books (or library of books if you will) of different literature types for the time period it was writen some are history some are poetic, some are prophetic. The Torah it self is a compilation. Oral tradition transcribed into writings as well as a historical account, a legal document, poetic verse, a military statistical source etc... You are taking the genesis creation account as entirely literal. I'm not sure it was meant that way. I've mentioned it before I think it tells the truth but not meant to be a scientific document. Its outline on how God did things. Days 1-3 General outline Days 4-6 are specified what specifically God is creating in creation. Day 7 summation and principle of a holy sacred day of rest. Equating rest with observance of God. Principle points but not a "how to do it yourself" or "step by step" guide on how things are done.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is where the Christian goes on the same slippery slope that the evolutionist has already arrived at. It was not natural selection that produced long necks in Giraffes. It was a genetic trait.
Thus the evolutionist will use his concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to eventually jump from one species to another--a totally unbiblical concept.

Which has nothing to do with the use of the term "evolution". Two completely separate issues. And again creationists use the word "evolution"just as I am using it. It is not simply a misuse by evolutionists.

 

[Revmitchell]

You are. You are interpreting it literally. As I was with John 6 which is my point.

It is a poor point as it is based on a strawman. You either do not understand the literal interpretation or you are intentionally using the strawman. I posted a very good article in this subject written by J.I. Packer in the thread on literal interpretation. You should read it.

 

[Johnv]

It indicates nothing of the sort and you have play mental gymnastics to get there. Silly

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.

There is no disrespect in that statement.

Yes there is. I asked a valid question: How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22 when God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". Rather than tell me what you think the passage refers to, you make a brash comment of "that's what satan said". This is a good example of why the creation/evolution topic should generally be avoided: It gets inflused with emotion over respectful logical discussion. Look, I have no problem with your position on the topic. But is it so much to ask to remain civil, respectful, and thoughtful in the discussion?

Limiting God would be to say "it could not have been done".

I'm the first person that with God, all things are possible. I should at least acknowlege to you my frustration with well-intended Christians who insist that evolution is impossible with God.

I did not insult him. And what, exactly, is a "figurative 1000 year reign" ?

It's a concept bounced around in the other threads that the number "1000" in REvelation is representative of something else, much like the seven-headed beast, ten horns, etc, is representative of somethign else. I dont' necessarily subscribe to it. I was just responding to you having barought it up. It's a topic better left for a different thread.

 

[Revmitchell]

New species have been observed (speciation). New genera have not been observed. It has been a common argument for creationists that speciation has not been observed, but that is no longer the case. In order for creationists to be consistent, the argument should be that the development of new genera is not possible, and that speciation still falls within the scope of microevolution. Foster the argument that microevolution is impossible, or that speciation is unobserved, causes credibility issues in the creationst argument.

These so called new species are a result of the line of category being moved to allow for it. Scientists who set their own categories are not being honest. And absolutely no credibility has been lost.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is a poor point as it is based on a strawman. You either do not understand the literal interpretation or you are intentionally using the strawman. I posted a very good article in this subject written by J.I. Packer in the thread on literal interpretation. You should read it.

I wasn't commenting to you. However,since you replied, I don't believe its a strawman at all. It just seems that way to literalist. I like J.I. Packer. However, I also know there are many levels at which to understand scripture. Some are literal others are not. Apocalyptic literature should be looked at in context of other apocalyptic literature of its day. For instance in the Torah it speaks of 70 hebrew leaders going part way up the mountain. And they ate in the pressence of the Lord and at his feel was like a saphire. Literal or Anthropomorphism? How about the woman crowned with 12 stars Literal or not? Where is this article posted anyway?

 

[Revmitchell]

Then answer my question. How does one reconcile Genesis 3:22? It's a reasonable question.

There is nothing to reconcile. You imposed on that verse "A post-sin physical death model would seem to downplay the importance of the tree of life," with no good reasoning. Hence it is silly. Neither would I spend time defending why 2+2 does not equal 10. It is not reasonable.

 

[Johnv]

There is nothing to reconcile. You imposed on that verse "A post-sin physical death model would seem to downplay the importance of the tree of life," with no good reasoning. Hence it is silly. Neither would I spend time defending why 2+2 does not equal 10. It is not reasonable.

How, then do you reconcile Gen 3:22 with the rest of Gen 3? I came up with a possibel scenario. If you have a better one, feel free to share it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I wasn't commenting to you. However,since you replied, I don't believe its a strawman at all. It just seems that way to literalist. I like J.I. Packer. However, I also know there are many levels at which to understand scripture. Some are literal others are not. Apocalyptic literature should be looked at in context of other apocalyptic literature of its day. For instance in the Torah it speaks of 70 hebrew leaders going part way up the mountain. And they ate in the pressence of the Lord and at his feel was like a saphire. Literal or Anthropomorphism? How about the woman crowned with 12 stars Literal or not? Where is this article posted anyway?

Here it is:http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html

I posted this because it fit both threads not to spam the board with it.

 

[Revmitchell]

How, then do you reconcile Gen 3:22 with the rest of Gen 3? I came up with a possibel scenario. If you have a better one, feel free to share it.

There is nothing to reconcile.