Creation Vs Evolution As World Views

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
AC,

Are you saying that evolutionists aren't Christians? Or that we attend church only to socialize? Or that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is a a "Biblical perspective" which is a pre-requisite to being a Christian even in the modern day when science provides a different explanation?

I've always preferred it when folks speak their minds rather than hinting at things.

What I am saying that MOST people who attend a variety of churches are not true Christians. I believe that the majority of evolutionists don't even regularly attend churches of any sort, and I feel strongly that SOME true Christians are very foolish and see no problem following the theories of men who setting asside GOD's WORD as inferior to scientic accountabilities. There have ALWAYS been people who have considered themselves "modern" and yet have missed reality in truth to follow the herd. True Christians are a peculiar people. That in itself should be a warning to accepting what the world says is normal and correct...

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
You keep speaking of all the evidence. There is ONLY speculation based on investigated data. That data maybe accepted in various ways by various people . . .

You have seriously underestimated the amount and quality of the evidence for a universe billions of years old and life of common descent over millions and millions of years.

Do you doubt that a molecule of water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and an atom of oxygen? In a very broad theoretical sense, it is a speculation of a sort, but it would be perverse to say it isn't a thing established and certain in scientific knowledge.

In the same way, to many of us, it is past time to consider the deep time knowledge of the universe and the knowledge of common descent of all life as being a mere speculation. It is a thing established and certain in scientific knowledge.

It is my considered opinion that the evidence is there, if considered without prejudice.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
BobRyan:

You seem to feel that because the fossil record is incomplete this is proof that evolution did not occur. Why isn't it merely a reflection of the fact that fossilization is inherently a rare event? How could a thing that is very rare be expected to show a complete record?

Incomplete is not the half of it.

The "problem" is that the "Salient point" of the argument made in evolutionisms doctrines is "entirely missing" from the fossil record.

I gave the example in the case of the Trilobite showing that it only has "a compound eye" no "light spot that evolves to become a simple eye and then a compound eye".

The "essence of evolutionism" has failed.

But that is really "off topic" the point is - the "World View" as God gives it vs the world view that humanism gives.

Richard Dawkins said it best. THere is nothing left for God to "do" because for humanists - evolutionism leaves no gaps. It explains everything.

Of course from some Christians "a gap in the first cell" is "about the right size for God".

But to Bible believing Christians that accept the Word of God as it reads - the Creator did as HE said "IN SIX days GOD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water".

That's the Creator's "World View". (Hmm. He must be a "creationist")

In Christ,

Bob

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by CalvinG:
why do you think Adam was created as a healthy 30-year-old man instead of as a healthy 20-some year-old man?

I often get questions similar to this one from “Christian” skeptics all the time on other Message Boards. But it usually goes like “why would God deceive?”

It’s no secret from reading Genesis, that the Garden was filled with false appearances of age, ie…mature plants, trees, animals and even Adam and Eve, but then again, any created universe must, by the nature of the case display some false appearance of age. But, this is in no way deceptive, since God in His Word revealed to man what He did! We need only to believe by faith what He has told us, just as we believe by faith that Jesus Christ died and was raised from the dead. It is those Christians who insist that the world made itself who are deceiving themselves and undermining scripture.

 

[UTEOTW]

And I showed you that the earliest trilobites had a simple eye that evolved into a more complex eye with time. You want an "eyespot" then you'll have to go back much further in time than the trilobites. What do you think a fossil of an eyespot would look like, BTW?

But we have chemical evidence to support it, even if we cannot find that fossil eyespot. The light sensitive chemical in our eyes (for B&W I think) is rhodopsin. Now this is just a variation on vitamin A. So, once again, evolution used something already laying around, modified it slightly, and came up with a new ability.

BTW, have you come up with ways that the geologic sorting of fossils we see could be accomplished hydraulically? I gave you a short list of problems to sort through.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] And I showed you that the earliest trilobites had a simple eye that evolved into a more complex eye with time. You want an "eyespot" then you'll have to go back much further in time than the trilobites. What do you think a fossil of an eyespot would look like, BTW?

Obviously it looks like a trilobite with no eyeridges or possibly just and indentation.

And "obviously" we find no such stepwise process for trilobites. Nor do we find "older trilobite" prior to the pre-cambrian era.

Notice that "any light sensitive chemical in any eye" is "all the support" the that the "stories of evolutionism needs" to build its case for the Trilobite eye.

But we have chemical evidence to support it, even if we cannot find that fossil eyespot. The light sensitive chemical in our eyes (for B&W I think) is rhodopsin.

UTEOTW
BTW, have you come up with ways that the geologic sorting of fossils we see could be accomplished hydraulically? I gave you a short list of problems to sort through.

Were you wanting to go through and exercise on turbidity current effects now?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Getting back to the "Clash of world view" between the "Claims of evolutionism" and the claims of the "Creator in His Genesis 1-2:3 account"...

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:

The following example shows that the world-views of both creation and evolution are basically philosophical or, better, religious.

Creation
Self-existing external Creator
Cosmos created by divine fiat
Basic systems completed in the past by supernatural processes
Net changes in created systems ‘downward’ toward disorganization

Evolution
Self-originating or self-existing cosmos
Cosmos organized by itself.
All systems developed by still-continuing natural processes
Net changes in evolving systems ‘upward’ toward higher organizations. [/QB]

Well said.

Both Atheist evolutionists and Christian Creationists would heartily agree with your observation.

Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is the author of many books including the international best-sellers "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", and "Climbing Mount Improbable."
FROM : http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Perfect contrast and nice confession too.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Once upon a time a preacher told a little boy that God made him, the little boy that is.

Then the little boy went home and learned that he was born on such and such a day at such and such a hospital and later was acquainted with the "facts of life" . . .

Should he stop believing that God made him? I don't think so, and none of the reasoning you shared with us as you describe the so called world view of evolution (a completely impossible thing - a theory can't think and a theory can't hold a philosophy) has any power to convince me otherwise.

As a Christian who accepts the facts of evolution - a position shared by very many of us, by the way - I can tell you your ideas about what I think are wrong. I know that God IS our creator and sustainor. He also has other purposes, no doubt, and we cannot know them all. The organization of the Universe was in the mind of God from eternity always. He is my Savior, my Lord, my Hope.

 

[UTEOTW]

Paul

Bob

A trilobite is a whole living system, not just a body with eyes. The body came about as adaptations to its environment. You did not start out with a trilobite body and no eyes. That is a strawman. We do have trilobites ancestors in the pre-Cambrian, but they are not well enough preserved to see their eyes. But I would be willing to bet they had some type of eye. You are also ignoring that I pointed out that we can observe evolution of the trilobite eye to something more complex as we compare early trilobites with later trilobites.

And yes, I am very interested to hear how you can get the kinds of things I mentioned into the fossil record the way they are through hydraulic sorting.

 

[john6:63]

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Once upon a time a preacher told a little boy that God made him, the little boy that is.

Then the little boy went home and learned that he was born on such and such a day at such and such a hospital and later was acquainted with the "facts of life" . . .

Genesis 1 will explain that once God created Adam and then Eve, God then commanded them to be fruitful and MULTIPLY. God instituted procreation, not evolution.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Should he stop believing that God made him? I don't think so,

But, once the theories of evolution are forced down his throat the first thing he’ll do is question Genesis. He’ll then be forced with a decision to make. Either, A. Genesis is historically accurate or, B. Genesis is a fairy tale.

If he chooses B, eventually he’ll realize that if Adam was figurative, then how can there be a literal Fall, and if there’s no literal Fall, how can there be a literal Hell; and if there’s no literal Hell, what’s the point of Jesus Christ dieing for the sins of the world? The structure and basis of our Salvation falls apart.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
But, once the theories of evolution are forced down his throat the first thing he’ll do is question Genesis. He’ll then be forced with a decision to make. Either, A. Genesis is historically accurate or, B. Genesis is a fairy tale.

If he chooses B, eventually he’ll realize that if Adam was figurative, then how can there be a literal Fall, and if there’s no literal Fall, how can there be a literal Hell; and if there’s no literal Hell, what’s the point of Jesus Christ dieing for the sins of the world? The structure and basis of our Salvation falls apart. [/QB]

That's an interesting problem you've decided to give your converts, John6:3, a religion that is incompatible with reality. Either give up reality or give up religion, huh?

Maybe if you didn't present your learners with such a dire either-or option they could remain true to their minds as well as their hearts.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

A trilobite is a whole living system, not just a body with eyes. The body came about as adaptations to its environment.

Which means you did not "Start" with a fully formed trilobite -- compound eye and all.

RATHER evolutionism "needs" a stepwise process that gradually builds each of the complex systems in the trilobite at differing rates of development until "finally" we have the fully formed trilobite.

Such is "obviously" not the case with the fossil record.

Evolutionism is now "Stuck" trying to "explain away" the data. Explain WHY the data does NOT show what evolutionism predicts.

Sad but true.

... but they are not well enough preserved to see their eyes. But I would be willing to bet they had some type of eye.

Indeed "tell your story".

But in the end - basing your faith on your "stories" instead of the fossil record is like a Christian basing their faith on "stories" and not the Bible.

You have been forced to abandon the fossil data and rely on "betting" in your "stories" as a kind of "substitute for data".

You believe in the evolutionary tale in spite of the data - not because of it.

And yes, I am very interested to hear how you can get the kinds of things I mentioned into the fossil record the way they are through hydraulic sorting.

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html

Enjoy "reading the details". They will not dissappoint the Bible believing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html

Enjoy "reading the details". They will not dissappoint the Bible believing."

That was fun.

The sorting was based on ecology and who could run the fastest. So those angiosperms and grasses ran real fast to make sure that they were only in the upper layers while those whales... Why exactly are they only found in the upper layers? Can fish not swim just as fast? Does a whale not inhabit the same ecology as fish?

And you talk about me giving "any old answer."

Entertaining but not enlightening.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Which means you did not "Start" with a fully formed trilobite -- compound eye and all.

RATHER evolutionism "needs" a stepwise process that gradually builds each of the complex systems in the trilobite at differing rates of development until "finally" we have the fully formed trilobite."

Yes.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
We do have trilobites ancestors in the pre-Cambrian, but they are not well enough preserved to see their eyes. But I would be willing to bet they had some type of eye. You are also ignoring that I pointed out that we can observe evolution of the trilobite eye to something more complex as we compare early trilobites with later trilobites.

We can also observe evolution in the mind's eye to something more complex as we compare early evolutionists like Darwin with later evolutionaries like Dawkins.

Same old religion though.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Got an extra $6 to spend?

Go down to the magazine section of your favorite store and pick up a copy of the special edition of Scientific American, DINOSAURS AND OTHER MONSTERS. Its the one with the big toothy dinosaur on the cover.

On page 93 you can see some fossils of rare pre-cambrian date. possibly ancestors of the trilobite.

You can also peruse interesting finds that have greatly illuminated the evolution of whales from land animals on pages 14 and following. Intermediate stages between the land forms and the fully aquatic forms that have been unearthed are described and pictured.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You cannot show me anywhere in a biology textbook where they promote Satanism or beastiality or racism or any of this other junk. Evolution offers nothing of the sort. If someone tries to use TOE to support their own vileness, that is their problem. Their is no "philosophy" of evolution and I doubt that you can show me where any of these things can be tied directly to evolution and not someone's twisting of the science.

The religious belief in Darwin's claim that humans evolved from hairy ape-like progenitors in Africa is similar to the belief in reincarnation because it is based on circular reasoning and endless time. It is a religious philosophy because it's conclusions about human history are predicated upon it's original premises.

icr.org makes it easy to associate Darwinism with evolutionism and many other 'isms' besides organisms. Just go to their website and type in whatever 'ism' you're interested in.

Darwin wrote about distinct and separate "races" of men. Modern evos speak of extinct "species" of men. What's the difference?

No human races in natural history = no human species either.

Deny Darwin's "races" of men and you deny Darwin.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Got an extra $6 to spend?

Go down to the magazine section of your favorite store and pick up a copy of the special edition of Scientific American, DINOSAURS AND OTHER MONSTERS. Its the one with the big toothy dinosaur on the cover.

On page 93 you can see some fossils of rare pre-cambrian date. possibly ancestors of the trilobite.

You can also peruse interesting finds that have greatly illuminated the evolution of whales from land animals on pages 14 and following. Intermediate stages between the land forms and the fully aquatic forms that have been unearthed are described and pictured.

Six bucks is too much for an adult comic book.

 

[BobRyan]

Since the clash of World Views between Christianity and Evolutionism is the focus of this thread and the "Religion of evolutionism" thread...

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As Dawkins points out - evolutionism's doctrines were invented with the very purpose of "Explaining" that part that the Bible attributes to our "Creator".


Eolutionism's myths and fables offer an alternative to Christ the Creator (John 1:1-3) such that (as Dawkins points out) the Creator "contributes nothing".

For some Christians - this "shrinking God" attribute of doctrines of evolutionism is "just fine". Even though it requires some pretty "bad science" in terms of the scientific method - to get there.

Christian believers in evolutionism's doctrines find themselves in a foxhole that is rejected by the atheist evolutionist science elite as well as by Bible-believing - Christians that choose to trust the Creators "account" of His own act in creating the world.

In Christ,

Bob