Evolutionary Propoganda - A True Story

Alas, at least two of the claims in the second link are incorrect: the one about Dubois hiding human skulls for 30 years, and the one about Mary Leakey finding "human" footprints.

Dubois never hid the skulls: he published on them in European journals that were available (and still are, though not widely). The footprints Leakey's team found were not human, and neither she nor any other paleoanthropologist has ever claimed they were.

 

Strange, both sides say the same thing.</font>[/QUOTE]Not quite...

Allow me to quote the next post.

Both DM and I have shown several misleading, incorrect facts in the few references that were recently posted. You have not. We say that they are misleading and give information to back it up. You, at best, simply assert the information is wrong and at worst reference the debunked material.

 

Hmm, this debate is going now where really. Evolutionist will bring their scientific evidence to the table while YEC’s bring the literal meaning of the Bible. The question should be is genesis literal or not?
If not, using the Bible only prove that it is not literal.
Not mans scientific evidence of world (evolution) which is a theory.
Why have the evolutionist ignore the fact the Jesus referred the old testament as actual events?
To say Jesus did no mean what he said is bearing false witness against him even though you disguise it by saying “I interpret the Bible differently than you”.

 

But Matthew, you have no problem accepting a nonliteral interpretation based on extrabiblical evidence when it suits you. The classic example is that geocentrists can do a good a job with geocentricity and pulling out verses to support themselves as you can with requiring a literal creation. But you do not accept that. Periodically the example is posted about the four legged, winged insects. That never causes much of a stir. But here's another one.In Matthew 4:8 :"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Surely you do not think that the devil showed Him every kingdom just by taking Him to a high mountain. The highest mountain of the region is less than 10000 ft tall. From 10000 feet you can only see about [1.17 * (10000)^0.5 = ] 117 miles. So you cannot see Rome, nor Greece, nor Egypt, nor India, nor China, nor any American Indians. So though the text says he was shown "all the kingdoms of the world" by going up a "high mountain" you know that there is something more to the story. Either it was the local kingdoms (the kingdoms of the world they knew) and not the "whole world" or there was a supernatural means of showing the "whole world" and not simply because they were on a "high mountain." But that is not what the literal reading says.

God does not lie and the record he has given us in nature shows an ancient creation. Therefore just maybe the creation as told in Genesis is trying to get accross some spiritural truths, such as God the Creator and sinful man, and is not necessarily a blow by blow literal account. As you quoted me, you are consistently unable to deal with the evidence presented for an old earth. The recent links were a nice try, but they were woefully inadequate and full of untrue and incomplete (I think deliberately. If you do enough research to put the level of writing together of some of the links, then you knew about the things that were left out. That is sometimes called a lie of omission. I often feel that YECs are purposely leaving stuff out. I do not ever feel like I have to suppress anything.) material.

 

You have given your opinion concerning these "incorrect" facts.

Personally I am still not persuaded that your opinions are valid just because you say they are.
Neither do I accept your assertion of "misleading information".

Your own opinion is supported by what you believe is accurate information. I don't doubt your sincerity, neither do I believe you have lied.
But I don't accept the speculation that just because a creature had ear bones surrounded by fat, this proves the existence of a walking whale.

We are all subjective and prejudicial in our ground of being and its defense, that should be a given.

What manner of decision was this that Rodhocetus found it necessary to develope large vertebrae in its tail for swimming?

That it "developed" vertebrae "For swimming" shows an intelligent decision based upon a need does it not?

HankD

 

For the simple-minded person who takes the Bible literally that is not a difficult passage to understand. Both Christ and Satan are supernatural beings who both are able to perform miracles. However Christ laid aside His deity at this time and suffered this time of temptation as a man. Satan used everything at his disposal to cause Him to sin. Satan works miracles too, just as he did through his magicians in front of Moses and Pharaoh. It was nothing for him to show Christ the kingdoms of the world. He is the master of deception, works miracles, and deceives many. But Christ was not to be deceived, neither was He to give into temptation. The temptation has nothing to do with actual physical dimensions of the topography at hand.
DHK

 

But how did he see the other side of the globe?

 

Who?

HankD

 

But DHK, your explanation shows that you do not accept the passage as literally wrtitten. Satan was unable to show him ALL the kingdoms simply by taking Him to a high mountain. Either there was some supernatural goings on or it was not the whole world. Quite different than the literal reading.

 

The point I was making was that the author stated that there was absolutely NO evidence that Ambulocetus was a swimming animal. That is proved false by showing that it actually had an ear adapted for use underwater. The author was misleading by ignoring one of the key discoveries of the creature.

No decision was needed. You have an animal that spends much of its time in the water. Any change that makes it a better swimmer, such as a slightly larger tail vertebrae, would be selected and kept. God obviously wanted whales on the scene so if there was some necessity for Him to intervene, fine. But the evidence show that Rodhocetus is something intermediate to the original land dwelling animal and the marine modern mammals. But the point of bringing up Rodhocetus was again that the author stated flatly that there was not an intermediate between Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus. Rodhocetus is the intermediate and he knew about it because he mentioned it in the previous paragraph. So again, this very much suggests that he said something he knew not to be true.

And these are not exactly my opinions, though I agree with them. These are the opinions of the guys who have studied the material, dug up and examined the bones, and who have access to all the relevant material. It is not enough to dismiss their opinion because you disagree with it. If you have a different opinion, show how your opinion fits the available data better. That is what I have been doing in the preceding posts. Someone posted some links so I dug up the information that shows them to be wrong. If you have go the data and the interpretations to disprove what has been discovered, great! I would love to hear it. It would be great for you to be right and end the debate. But, alas, thus far the evidence is against you and the alternative interpretations, when even available, are wanting.

 

Huh?

Considering that satan was of the upper crust prior to his rebellion, why do you question his power?

Again, why?? This is not an explanation of the process satan employed, simply a statement of "what happened"!

It's your interpretation that's causing the conflict here, not what the scripture says.

 

Which comes first - Evidence or Bible?

Does anyone ever come to believe in the Bible without any evidence to cause them to do so?

How could that ever possibly be so? If God's Spirit asks you to trust in the Bible, that is evidence. If your church suggests you should trust the Bible, that is evidence. If you find that Biblical prophecies are fulfilled, that is evidence. If you find that the Bible message has the power to transform lives, that is evidence.

Nobody ever turns to believing the Bible without first having some evidence in favor of doing that.

This means it is illogical to decide that extra biblical evidence is of no value. Since the extra biblical evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an earth 4.5 billion years of age, it is unreasonable to reject the evidence.

 

just-want-peace,

The fact that said event took place on a very tall mountain directly implies that the reason Jesus could see the entire world was because he was on top of the mountain.

By your logic, Satan used his power to show the entire world, and the fact that they were on top of a tall mountain was just a coincidence. Right.

 

Brett gets what I was trying to say. I am not questioning the account. I think DHK at least may have thought it was some sort of inerrancy question the way he responded. Just-want-peace, you again back up what I was saying without realizing it. If He saw all the kingdoms of the world, it was not because He was on a high mountain. I know this, you know this. So you do not take the passage literally.

 

Actually there is no solid empirical evidence just fossil remains and speculation when it comes to the several views of the Theory of Evolution.

If this theory is correct, no one with intelligence was there to document the behavior of these transitory (if indeed they were) creatures. So faith is the deciding factor.

I am glad that you finally introduced God into the equation (somehow I knew you would).

Personally my faith is founded on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Yours must be founded on an allegorical view.

After all faith is the evidence of things unseen.
Neither of us was there to see the creation.

As I said before, I (unlike others) do not doubt your spirituality.

But I have lived long enough to know that I could come up with a more credible rebuttal from a more reliable source to refute your argument.

But what is the point? No will change their mind. My view is that just airing our differences is healthy as long as there is no name calling.

But, if folk want to believe that they descended from baboons, so be it.


Just kidding!!

HankD

 

Actually, the fossil record is a decent part of the empirical evidence. There is modern stuff though. The nested heirarchy, observations of speciation, the genetic evidence, observations of the mechanics of evolution plus geology and astronomy.

I would not call it faith. There is a lot to be learned from the past.

Gos has always been a part. I am a creationist you know.

Yes sir...

This is true. I just think that the there is evidence in nature to show us how God accomplished His creation.

Quite wonderful. We can disagree here while agreeing on a whole lot more.

Actually I have already changed my mind, so it is possible. For me, the point is that to a lot of people, this is a lot more devisive. Therefore, this is a subject that needs to be decided so we can get on to bigger things.

I completely agree. I think this can be a healthy and enjoyable debate. There is so much to discuss and to learn. Even if I do not change anyone's mind, I hope that they at least are forced to critically consider what it is they believe and become better at defending it. It really is refreshing to see such an attitude. It leads to a discussion which can be stimulating, challenging and enlightening without dividing us.

Not a baboon. An ape.

Good post. We need more like it. Bring the tension down a bit. Thanks!

 

Yes I believe that there is a great possibility that there were "some supernatural goings on," as you say it. But that in no way takes away from the literalness of the passage. In many of the events of the stories recorded in the Bible we do not have all the facts set before us. Compare the different events of various situations recorded in all four gospels. You find information in one gospel that you don't find in another. Was one gospel writer deliberately withholding information? Of course not. It is not in God's interest to put everything in the account that he is relating to us. It is in his interest to relate to us the truth that he wants to get across to us for our benefit. It is not important how Satan did it; it is important that he did.
DHK

 

Actually, so have I. I was saved while doing a tour in the USAF over 40 years ago (yes they had flying machines then ).

I was a "cradle" Catholic and stayed in the RCC for 2 years. At the time I was an adherent to theistic evolution (Henri Bergson brand). Formerly I was agnostic/atheistic with a secular view of origins.

After I left the Church of Rome my view of origins changed to a 24/6 literal view a few years later.

HankD

 

I agree with that. Which is about how I feal about the creation. It is not necessary that every detail be recorded. What we have gets us the truth on which everything else is based whether you take it as literal or figurative. The important thing is that we recognize God as the creator. We just differ on how he accomplished it.

 

Hi UTEOTW,

Following this quote I have repeated it with my comments interspeersed in it.

UTEOTW
Member
Member # 3409

posted November 10, 2003 08:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello dawna! Welcome to the fray.

You do not have many posts to your name, yet you have already found this thread and posted a couple of times. I take that to mean you are interested in this subject. Our moderators have recently promised that the forum dedicated to this subject will be back up and running shortly and I would like to invite you to come participate when it happens. There are a few related threads floating around, but I and others seem to be avoiding most of them until the proper forum reopens.

On to your post. I have to be honest and say I did not read them in entirety simply because long copy and pastes don't really interest me. But I did muddle through enough to get the gist of the first post. Ham's main point seems to be that the different interpretations of the data comes from differing presuppositions.

It is my opinion that there is a fatal flaw in his reasoning. The flaw is that it does nothing for explaining how people come to accept evolution who do not have a presuppostition that it is true.

My Response:
&gt;&gt;&gt;Ken Ham is not talking about the presupposition of assuming evolution is true. If you will read the articles carefully, you will find that Ken Ham mentions the presupposition beliefs of no god, naturalism, and materialism. I believe one should add to the list the presupposition belief of uniformitarianism. Starting with these presuppositions leads people to the development of the evolutionary interpretation of the data.&lt;&lt;&lt;

The first example has to be the first people to see the evidence for an old earth or for an old universe or for evolution were challenging the paradigm of the day. They did not have a preconceived notion of billions of years, they had quite the opposite. It was the data that led them to their conclusions despite the presuppositions of the day.

My Response:
&gt;&gt;&gt;You are correct about them not having a preconceived notion of billions of years. They started with the presuppositions of not wanting god to be real, naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism. I believe many of them, secret non-Christians, secretly wanted something to give them an intellectual sounding excuse to get out from under the moral constraints of Christianity. Again, it was these starting presuppositions that lead those people to develop the evolutionary interpretation of the data, which included the need for an extremely long period of time to gives a semblance of possibility to the evolutionary hypothesis.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Second, you do nothing to explain enigmas like myself. I grew up and entered adulthood with the belief in a young earth and a strong suspicion of these people who proclaimed an old earth. But when I, even with my strong bias towards the YEC position, looked at the evidence I was quickly conviced of the reality of an old universe and of the overwhelming evidence for evolution to be a fact. There are many people like me. People who are Christians and yet come to accept the evidence when examined. And plenty of people who are Christians who actually work in the fields of biology amd paleontology and astonomy and geology and who accept the paradigms of their field.

My Response:
&gt;&gt;&gt;I have talked to many Christian that give the same testimony that you gave above. I usually question them to try to find out what presuppositions they were holding before they abandoned the Bible YEC hypothesis. These presuppositions include their beliefs and secret desires, if they are willing to reveal their secret desires. I do not have any idea about the details of your beliefs and secret desires before you abandoned the YEC hypothesis. Some of the presuppositions that I found in many of them, that were willing to reveal that much detail, were elements of naturalism, elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, that Genesis chapters 1-10 is allegorical, not literal; and I also found that they had a very strong desire not to have their intellect ridiculed by the large non-Christian crowd of evolutionists. I often suspected that the strong desire to not have their intellect ridiculed was so strong that it caused them to accept many of the elements of naturalism, elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, and that Genesis chapters 1-10 is allegorical, not literal.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Ham made a startling confession in what you posted. "Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians' presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts." From my perspective, the same thing happens once you accept the creation story as true but not literal. At that point you have no evidence for a young earth! What an addmission by Ham. He tries to dismiss it, but the truth is that the acceptance for an old earth falls out of the evidence. If you are unable to provide a better interpretation of the evidence, which Ham admits cannot be done, then all the protestations are meaningless and useless.

My Response:
&lt;&lt;&lt; I believe the old earth interpretation only falls out when you have accepted additional presuppositions like many of the elements of naturalism, many elements of materialism, uniformitarianism, along with a strong desire not to have you intellect ridiculed by the large non-Christian crowd of evolutionists. You have to have more presuppositions then just the presupposition of the Bible creation account being allegorical, non-literal.&lt;&lt;&lt;


A brother in Christ,
David C. Geminden

davidgeminden@yahoo.com and davidgeminden@netscape.net

"Jackelope Logic" & "Weak Conscience Christians and Legalism"
http://www.geocities.com/davidgeminden/index.html