Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

[Paul of Eugene]

J6, your demands are unreasonable. Every time a transition is pointed out to you that fits between the gaps instead of admitting a gap has been filled you simply claim two more gaps on each side. Of course you could keep saying that indefinately no matter how many transitions we come up with.

My advice is to stop calling science "fiction" and start understanding the depth of the evidence we have, including transitional fossils, genetic simlarities, vestiges, extinct species, whole sepearate extinct ecologies, and the order of appearance of families and species in the fossil record.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
J6, your demands are unreasonable. Every time a transition is pointed out to you that fits between the gaps instead of admitting a gap has been filled you simply claim two more gaps on each side. Of course you could keep saying that indefinately no matter how many transitions we come up with.

My advice is to stop calling science "fiction" and start understanding the depth of the evidence we have, including transitional fossils, genetic simlarities, vestiges, extinct species, whole sepearate extinct ecologies, and the order of appearance of families and species in the fossil record.

Maybe you’ll start to realize just how silly evolution is and how according to the laws of nature is totally impossible!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Another claim evolution is impossible. Nobody has ever proved evolution is impossible, you know . . . why do you say its impossible? Don't you think God could create a universe in which evolution was possible, if God wanted to do that?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Another claim evolution is impossible. Nobody has ever proved evolution is impossible, you know . . . why do you say its impossible?

It’s quite simple Paul, proof of evolution demands sequences of intermediate fossils that prove gradual evolution did indeed ‘create’ new complex biological structures. Have an experimentally testable theory that explains how it all happened. The discovery of the biological mechanisms that did the job and it has to be demonstrated that these mechanisms are creating new designs today.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Don't you think God could create a universe in which evolution was possible, if God wanted to do that?

Of course He could’ve, BUT God revealed to us by what means He used. God spoke this universe into existence and by the same method He created all the host of them and declared His creation as ‘good’ and declared it being ‘finished’.

Evolution in theory completely undermines the gospel. If there’s no literal Adam, then there’s no literal fall and if there’s no literal fall, then there’s no literal Hell and if there’s no literal Hell, then what’s the point of God sending His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the world? The atheistic community realizes this, evolution and the bible doesn’t mix.

 

[Travelsong]

hey John, if you're gonna do wholesale ripoffs of other people's work, at least provide a link like THIS one.

I mean really, you guys could at least make an attempt to understand the evidence being presented rather than regurgitating the thoughts of other people. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty that first drove me away from the YEC position, not even the facts themselves.

 

[UTEOTW]

"In addition, Oregon State University studied the fossil outline of the Sinosauropteryx and determined that, its bellowslike lungs couldn’t have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds."

I have time for one correction before I go get some dinner.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/lung_structure_and_ventilation_i.htm

You may want to read this paper a see the change in lungs that happened between dinosaurs and birds. If the lungs are a problem, then archy was no bird because he had lumgs like a theropod.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
hey John, if you're gonna do wholesale ripoffs of other people's work, at least provide a link like THIS one.

Yeah, like you guys don’t regurgitate talk.origins.

Originally posted by Travelsong:
It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty that first drove me away from the YEC position, not even the facts themselves.

No, it wasn’t intellectual dishonesty that drove you away; it was your sin nature to rebel against Gods Word, and the mere fact that you don’t have the guts to stand up and proclaim the gospel in the atheistic scientific community, in fear of a little persecution.

Jesus Christ was right when He said in Luke 18:8, Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

What really blows my mind is that you guys pick and choose what to have faith in when it comes to the Word of God, especially when it comes to salvation. Science hasn’t demonstrated a virgin birth in humans nor resurrection in humans and says it’s impossible, but OH NO, we must have faith, even if science disagrees….Its our salvation, but when science disagrees w/ Genesis, it’s the truth. Kinda make me wonder just how sincere your faith really is.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Oh, I'm definately a Christian, have been all my life, and at church I play the piano, am elected Sunday School director, Deacon, on the faith team, . . . have tithed all my life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 6
It’s really sad to know that a Church would elect an evolutionist as it’s Sunday School director. Looks like another Church that’s compromised God’s Word in order not to offend or run off its members.

The majority of Christian denominations (Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist..) teach evolution in their colleges and universities as a "valid" belief that they hope will be perfectly compatible with the Gospel, the Word of God etc.

So as much as the flaws in such a conflicted compromise are seen clearly by most Bible-Believing Creator-Account-trusting Christians (and yes that includes their theologians) - AND by prominent atheist evolutionists... still it would not be correct to charge that such compromise is not pervasive at least at the higher education levels in well known denominations.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said "Another smoke screen UTEOTW? "obviously" I am not quoting the evolutionist Asimov on all his evolutionist beliefs! It serves my purpose to simply highlight what he says about entropy and its impact on biological systems."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

It is not a smoke screen to point out that if you were to include the 5 or 6 sentences to either side of your quote, it would have a completely different meaning that what you have given us.

Wrong. (And another fine example of a dodge).

Asimov said that these examples of entropy are "What the Second law is ALL ABOUT" showing that he accepts HIS OWN EXAMPLES as legitimate examples.

Your "failed hope" is to reach for some mythical statement that would say "No those examples are utterly false. I only use them to deceive the ignorant masses of non-evolutionists".

Please UTEOTW - try a more objective approach. Your argument is "out of the void of what you do not quote". It is merely a "failed hope".

UTEOTW
This is a dishonest misquoting of a reputable person. You are telling us that he said something which he really did not say.

I gave you the quote.

Reaching for mythical "hopeful texts" that you do not quote - does not constitute a kind of "proof" nor does such hopeful thinking turn the direct quote of Asimov into a quote of "me" as you seem to hope to bend it.

You claim it is "a mistake to quote Asimov directly" in anything he says that is not helpful to your cause.

How "objective" UTEOTW. As has already been stated - you have not shown any critical thinking or objectivity in this matter. I have quoted YOUR side - in making my case. You have NOT been able to do the same in making yours.

You only complain that I am able to do it.

The implications of the contrast is left as an exercise for the reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of "beneficial mutations" that are in fact "loss of ability" -- I gave examples of the effects of a cave environment on generations of certain species. I 'demonstrated' mutation sequences "happening" in real life rather than "hopefully speculated".

Then I add

"Interesting "Story". But I can "show" my example in real life. Can you?"

UTEOTW
Well, yes. But you would not accept the evidence. Go read up on some of the strategies that animals that live in deep ocean water have developed to deal with low light living.

AGain the test would be to move them in and out of those environments to observe the changes.

Rather than merely "hoping there was a change" but unnable to show the change.

UTEOTW
But you did not answer the question. What specifically would prevent any of the possibilities I mentioned from occuring?

Actually I did (several times). "OBviously" entropy applied to biological systems that drives them toward "dissorder" as Asimov states it - negates an upsurge of complexity and DNA information infusion charging up the scale of taxonomy (as you clearly need to have happen).

Entropy is "observed" in biological systems today - your wishfull "creation" of new genetic information from molecule to man - is not "observed" in the lab.

The chemistry is not different to give a beneficial mutation as opposed to a harmful one or a neutral one. So why are the beneficial ones impossible. Tell us, in technical terms, what prevents it.

AGain - your same failed attempt to argue that you want "Another reason" ASIDE from entropy acting on biological systems driving them to decay and dissorder (the very thing that Asimov asserts) -- or is it that you want to better understand why Biological systems depend on chemical interactions (interactions driven to equilibrium as it turns out) and molecular states (that increase in entropy over time)?

In any case - your beliefs in evolutionism clearly need you to "claim" that you don't see the connection between entropy driving biological systems towards dissorder and decay - and the blatant blind-faith statements of evolutionism to the contrary.

I don't envy you that battle against good science and good data.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Getting back on track for a second...

Notice an interesting trend here? The thread starts out with the damage done to the Word of God when marrying it to the myths of evolutionism. The question is how this compromise either hurts or helps the Word of God.

Invariably - the evolutionist response is 'yes but my views of evolutionism are that the world works in that mythical way'.

But clearly - the debate is not that evolutionists do not "believe" in evolutionism. (Though we do have fun showing why evolutionism is a bold corruption of good science). The point is to show how this is "helping" the Word of God.

Even our evolutionist friends "Admit" that the text of the Creator's Word is NOT true - rather it is "directed to an ignorant readership not nearly as experienced in creating life from scratch as our atheist evolutionists today would be". Their point has "repeatedly been" that the wording in the text is that of the ignorant non-scientific unlearned and superstitious - and NOT a statement of "fact" and "accuracy".

It has been delcared by them as nothing more than - easter-bunny-like truth for those that already believed in the easter bunny.

It is as if Moses "already believed the world was created in 7 literal days and just NEEDED to hear God say it" - much the same as evolutionists "need" to discover that entropy is not true - or does not apply to biological systems.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Why do you not give us the ten sentences before your Asimov quote and the ten sentences after your Asimov quote so that we can put the quote into perspective. Of coure thermo applies to biology, it applies to everything. I do not believe that your source thinks that entropy is a problem for evolution and I think it is very dishonest to quote him in a way that suggests that he does think so. If you are quoting him accurately, including in context, then give us the ten sentences to either side of the quote. I bet one or the other will show your quote to be out of context and will give his reason for why entropy is not a problem for evolution.

You keep asserting that the chemistry is somehow different for a beneficial mutation, but I have yet to see the evidence. I do not see how there is a difference between a single nucleotide substitution that would be beneficail and one that would be harmful.

Give us the full quote so we can see it in context if you wish to prove anything. Else it is obvious you are merely quote mining and that you do not really have a source that supports you.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Yeah, like you guys don’t regurgitate talk.origins.

As a matter of fact I've never even been to the site. As a matter of fact I never punch keyword searches to quicky brief myself on a possible response, I know what I believe and exactly why I believe it.

And another thing, I would never copy and paste someone else's thoughts and pass them off as my own. You're record of doing so betrays the fact that you not only have no intention of honestly addressing the evidence, you have no intention of attempting to understand the evidence. If you really cared about someone who you believed was misled do you not at least owe it to them to show where they err in their thinking? Do you not feel you are capable of taking a point by point rebuttal of the evidence presented and letting the facts speak for themselves? No of course not, all you are armed with is empty rhetoric accusing people who happen to disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis account of a lack of faith. You are incapable of reasonable and Christian discourse.

Originally posted by john6:63:
No, it wasn’t intellectual dishonesty that drove you away; it was your sin nature to rebel against Gods Word, and the mere fact that you don’t have the guts to stand up and proclaim the gospel in the atheistic scientific community, in fear of a little persecution.

On the contrary it was a division in my church initiated by witch hunters who used the same tactics you guys do that pushed me from the YEC side. Acceptance of the evidence came later, and my faith in God and His perfect Word is just fine. Furthermore, apart from the occasional casual read of a lay book like Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", I have absolutely no connection to any scientific community, so any "persecution" as you put it, that I might endure comes strictly from your side.

Originally posted by john6:63:
What really blows my mind is that you guys pick and choose what to have faith in when it comes to the Word of God, especially when it comes to salvation.

I don't just arbitrarily pick what to believe, my belief in an old earth came after much careful consideration. In fact, even though I'm absolutely positive of an old earth, I'm still undecided about evolution. If I'm ever capable of understanding the more technical side of the argument I'm certainly willing to be persuaded that common descent is true, and it still will not affect my faith in Jesus as the Son of God who has saved me from sin and death.

Originally posted by john6:63:
Science hasn’t demonstrated a virgin birth in humans nor resurrection in humans and says it’s impossible, but OH NO, we must have faith, even if science disagrees….Its our salvation, but when science disagrees w/ Genesis, it’s the truth. Kinda make me wonder just how sincere your faith really is.

To put it as you did right before your copy/paste response to Paul, It's simple. I believe God created and is fully in control of His creation from start to finish. I just happen to view the Genesis creation account as not being meant to be taken literally in the exact same way that I see the portions of Scripture which describe the sun orbiting the earth as not to be taken literally. This to me has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel message of salvation, and I think it's pathetic that YECers do.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
This to me has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel message of salvation, and I think it's pathetic that YECers do.

Actually, I think it’s pathetic and blasphemous to a Holy God to side with the atheistic view of the natural world who denies the very existence of God.

My straightforward view of Genesis is the same as Moses, Paul, Peter and Jesus Christ himself. As well as Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon.

Why should I take on a different view? B/C some atheist in a lab coat tells me otherwise, so I try to bend Gods Word to conform to the secular worlds view? I don’t think so. It’s the Lord Jesus Christ who I’m gonna stand before and if it was good enough for my Creator, than its good enough for me. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is a little more learned than you and your atheistic secular worldviews.

I’ll let the Holy Spirit lead me in truth, just as He lead the names I mentioned above.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, Martin Luthor is on record as opposing the notion that the earth rotates. He felt that to believe the earth rotates is to accept what some atheist in a lab coat tells us instead of God's Word and he wasn't going to bend God's word to conform to the secular world's view.

Do you bend to the secular world's view as to the rotation of the earth? YOU DO, DON'T YOU! Thus you fulfill the scriptures:

Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, Martin Luthor is on record as opposing the notion that the earth rotates. He felt that to believe the earth rotates is to accept what some atheist in a lab coat tells us instead of God's Word and he wasn't going to bend God's word to conform to the secular world's view.

Do you bend to the secular world's view as to the rotation of the earth? YOU DO, DON'T YOU! Thus you fulfill the scriptures:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers

</font>[/QUOTE]May I remind you that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the same as that of Moses, Paul, Peter and Jesus Christ. Is my literal interpretation of Genesis laying a heavy burden on you? Am I forcing you to comply? NO! What I’m doing is exposing the lies of evolution and demonstrating how Gods Word and Man’s theories on origins don’t mix.

Now back to Luke11:46 verse according to a bible commentary I have on Luke. A little background information on Luke 11:46, should clear your misunderstanding and your application is unwarranted. Lawyers of that day represented the Mosaic Law. They were the experts of the OT law and how it applied. In doing so, the interpreted the law in such away that it laid heavy burdens on the people. Some examples:

On the Sabbath, a man couldn’t carry something in his right hand or in his left hand, across his chest or on his shoulder. But a man could carry something with the back of his hand, with his foot, with his elbow, or in his ear, his hair, or in his sandal.

People were forbidden to tie a knot, but a woman could tie a knot in her girdle. So, if a bucket of water had to be raised from a well, you couldn’t tie a rope to the bucket, but a woman could tie her girdle to the bucket!

Another example is how ancient Rabbis took the command to respect proper sanitation in the army camp of Israel, see Deuteronomy 23:12-14 and applied it to Jerusalem, considering it the "camp of the Lord." When this interpretation was combined with Sabbath travel restrictions, it resulted in a prohibition against going to the bathroom on the Sabbath.

You see Paul, these are types of burdens the Lord was referring too. If you feel a burden, concerning this discussion on evolution, its probably the Holy Spirit convicting you.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by john6:63:
When this interpretation was combined with Sabbath travel restrictions, it resulted in a prohibition against going to the bathroom on the Sabbath.

Oh my!!!! Just as I'd be amiss of I disgregarded a call from God, I'd me amiss if I disregarded the call of nature!!!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by john6:63:
. . . If you feel a burden, concerning this discussion on evolution, its probably the Holy Spirit convicting you. [/QB]

Nooo, you are trying to impose the burden of staying with the literal interpretation instead of the findings of science in relation to evolution while you are not bothering to take up the burden of literal interpretation instead of the findings of science in relation to the rotation of the earth. This is how you fulfill that scripture.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
. . . If you feel a burden, concerning this discussion on evolution, its probably the Holy Spirit convicting you.

Nooo, you are trying to impose the burden of staying with the literal interpretation instead of the findings of science in relation to evolution while you are not bothering to take up the burden of literal interpretation instead of the findings of science in relation to the rotation of the earth. This is how you fulfill that scripture. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The findings of science in relation to the rotation of the earth proves the astronomical fact that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. So a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:5, agrees with this astronomical fact.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
When this interpretation was combined with Sabbath travel restrictions, it resulted in a prohibition against going to the bathroom on the Sabbath.

Oh my!!!! Just as I'd be amiss of I disgregarded a call from God, I'd me amiss if I disregarded the call of nature!!! </font>[/QUOTE]That's the single most clever thing I've read in this thread!