Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[UTEOTW]

Yes. Why would I not? If I did not believe that Jesus was God incarnated as a human I really would not be considered a Christian would I?

Now, why do you dismiss the evidence showing our common descent with the other life on earth and how do you know to take the scripture about the rising and setting of the sun as non-literal other than through scientific evidence that you do accept?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, why do you dismiss the evidence showing our common descent with the other life on earth

Depends on how one looks at the evidence. For example, an atheist who says there’s no God will look at the evidence in that light, even if it contradicts science, b/c there’s no alternative.

Sir Arthur Keith, a leading evolutionist of the twentieth century, candidly admitted: Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. Yes, once it is admitted that there is a God to whom an accounting must some day be given, belief in special creation must be avoided at all costs.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
and how do you know to take the scripture about the rising and setting of the sun as non-literal other than through scientific evidence that you do accept?

And why do you think your local weatherman still refers to the sun as, “rising” and “setting”? Do they not accept the evidence?

 

[UTEOTW]

But that is avoiding the question. The most likely explanation is that the language is a carryover from when people actually did believe in a geocentric earth. But the point that Paul is trying to make is different. If you insist the the Creation be literal, then why do you allow yourself a non-literal interpreation of scriptures such as the movement of the sun? You only do so because of outside knowledge that you accept.

Now, what about that evidence that shows we are apes and share a common ancestor?

 

[UTEOTW]

The quote is a complete fabrication. If you think not, then give us the reference and a fuller quote. That is a quote in context. Otherwise, I'll quote the following answer to the quote.

The quote that is attributed to Sir Arthur Keith is a figment of the creationists imagination. I researched that quote a month or two ago and could not find a trace of it. No library in the Atlanta metro area has this particular edition and neither Amazon nor Barnes and Noble has this edition. I am in nine newsgroups and no one in these NGs had a copy or had ever seen one. A search of the internet showed many references for this quote but every one of them was from a creationist site. It is also amazing because that Sir Arthur died in 1955 and the 100th anniversary edition would not have been issued until 1959. Tell me, did "God" write this for Sir Arthur from heaven?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

 

[Gup20]

Is the best that evolutionist can do? Justify their disbelief of the Bible by trying to find instances where other people disbelieve the Bible and then compare their own disbelief to that of others??

My question then... how does what someone else does wrong justify the things that you do wrong?

The fact of the matter is you guys dismiss, ignore, and flat out REJECT the Word of God in Genesis regarding the origins of life on earth. Ironic that you would disblieve the one account that is written by the One who does not lie. Ironic that you would disbelieve the one account from an actual eye witness.

The plain and simple truth is that the Bible does not support evolution, it thoroughly refutes uniformitarianism and evolution. To believe evolution is to disbelieve the Bible.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Now, what about that evidence that shows we are apes and share a common ancestor?

By evidence you mean a similarity in our DNA? First, a similarity isn’t an absolute indication of a common ancestry, therefore it doesn’t prove evolution, but does prove a common designer. My Honda Civic and my wife’s Honda Accord are two different cars, but have a lot of similarities, this doesn’t mean the Civic evolved from the Accord or vice versa, just means they have the same designer.

As to my knowledge a chimps DNA hasn’t been fully sequenced anyway, but they say chimps have let’s say 96% similarity, which still leaves 4% that’s different, when the amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. So at a 4% different we’re still looking at 120 million base pairs, which are equivalent to around 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. Looks to me like an impossible barrier for mutations to cross. See the book The Biotic Message by W.J. ReMine.

 

[UTEOTW]

Look at what I said. I did not even go for the common traits of coding DNA. I know that you will pass that off as a common designer though you can offer no proof of such. I went for non-design items. Shared retroviral insertions. Shared mutations. Shared vestigal traits. And the fossil record that shows the path of evolution to us.

These things are not covered by a common designer unless He builds in deliberate mistakes and noise. These are things which can only be easily explained through common descent.

And if you want to go for percents, you better be sure how and what is being counted. It varies widely depending on the intent of the researcher. But let's go with your example. 12 million differences. I remember reading that on average a human has 6 mutations. So 2 million generations. Let's say the split was 10 million years ago, so an average generation of 5 years. Too short but 10 - 15 years is not unreasonable. So the problem is much less than an orger of magnitude. Maybe 2 to 3 to 1. That is likely within the margin of error for the measurements. So I do not see a problem just continuing the back of the envelope calculation.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Yes. Why would I not? If I did not believe that Jesus was God incarnated as a human I really would not be considered a Christian would I?

Now, why do you dismiss the evidence showing our common descent with the other life on earth and how do you know to take the scripture about the rising and setting of the sun as non-literal other than through scientific evidence that you do accept?

I dismiss the evidence as showing common descent because it is human nature to misunderstand, misrepresent, and misread. If Christians can and do make mistakes (and they have the Holy Spirit), why should I accept the research of non-christians no matter how well intended... Can they do any better?

 

[UTEOTW]

With that, you can deny anything. Do you not have a specific fault that you find with the data? Does the evidence that IS in the creation that indicates common descent not concern you?

I find it surprising that you can that easily dismiss something simply because it does not appeal to the way you think without having a reason to do so. But, I tend to look logically. I guess that's why I am an engineer.

So if not common descent, why do you think that we share the retroviral insertions and pseudogenes with the other apes? Why do we have the vestigal body parts that were useful to fourlegged ancestors but not us? What do you think the fossil hominids actually are? What do you think Neanderthals were?

 

[Gup20]

Does the evidence that IS in the creation that indicates common descent not concern you?

The evidence in nature has to agree with the Biblical evidence, otherwise we can be sure that we are interpreting that evidence incorrectly.

The Biblical evidence overwhelmingly supports a young creation with distinct animal creations with man as a discreet creation. Therefore because we have an a priori committment to God's Word as absolute truth, we can say with resolution that evolution is, in fact, a false theory.

If evolutionists and uniformitarians can use their a priori committments as a foundation for their theories, so can we... and our a priori committment is the Scripture.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, answer the question, how do you know it is the rotation of the earth and not the movement of the sun without using outside information?

I guess that means you do not feel the need to know why creation itself shows an old earth and common descent. You are confident that you have the right interpretation.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So, answer the question, how do you know it is the rotation of the earth and not the movement of the sun without using outside information?

I guess that means you do not feel the need to know why creation itself shows an old earth and common descent. You are confident that you have the right interpretation.

UTEOTW:

In this case it make no difference. The learned information doesn't REALLY contradict what is expressed HISTORICALLY. I understand it now and the man 2000 years ago understood what was being said. However, I will not take objective data and man's opinion as gospel. I don't feel geology precludes an OLD earth. I feel man's logic and eyes are missing the mark and the BOAT (or Ark)...

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I just love it! People keep proving over and over right here in this thread the proposition I asserted at the beginning!

I have a couple of verses for such legalistic reasoners:

Luke 11:46
46 But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
NASU

Luke 11:52
52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."
NASU

 

[El_Guero]

ALL RIGHT!

Finally a discussion! ;o)

I love you all in Christ, but ...

OK, the first rule of scientific research is to leave your assumptions at the door ... ;o) I shall try ...

First, name any other animal that has the same number of genetic chromosome pairs that the human has? Name ONE ... I have been looking for any other species that actually has a genetic link to us. To say that concrete and glass have sand in their composition is to forget that we also have silica in our bodies ;o) Or that we share carbon with diamonds ... ;o)

Second, you said that it has taken millions of years for the development of the present (extant) human race's genetic varieties ... The last I saw - Our species was under 50,000 years old - but you could point me to something that is new evidence that WE have been around for millions of years ...

Third, why did it take scientific method (read this as man) an additional 3000+ years, AFTER Moses gave a very accurate description of creation, to ADD even a single (that should be read as ONE) scientific discovery about the advent of the world and the development of its species. You would have as good of a chance of winning the lotto as you would have a chance of putting the primary points of scientific information together that "God" revealed through Moses ... Sorry, I did not park all of my assumptions on that point ... that should not read "GOD", but "WHOEVER" gave it to Moses? I forget, that in order to be open, I must deny God ...

Do you really want the missing link?

The question behind the missing link: why was Moses the ONLY ancient scientist that described the creation of the universe as "Ex Nilo", that the planet was made from something that resulted from the original creation, that plants came first, fish came second, mammals came next, MAN was created LAST, and after man was created there was an explosion of life on our earth? ... Ooops - I forgot - he wasn't a scientist - he was trained by Egyptian Wizards to believe that RA was the Creator and that the world was created from water (AKA Nile) ... and that the sun was an egg laid daily by a goose ... ;o) ... He wrote about creation without scientific method what has taken modern "science" (several billion dollars, and thousands of modern priests) several centuries to hypothesize. And they want to spend billions more to go to Mars to "find the answer" ...

The missing link ... His name was not Neandertal, but God.

In Him,

Wayne

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by El_Guero:
ALL RIGHT!

Finally a discussion! ;o)

Glad you're having fun!

First, name any other animal that has the same number of genetic chromosome pairs that the human has? Name ONE ... I have been looking for any other species that actually has a genetic link to us. To say that concrete and glass have sand in their composition is to forget that we also have silica in our bodies ;o) Or that we share carbon with diamonds ... ;o)

I'm not sure why you're hung up on the "same number of genetic chromsome pairs" as opposed to the contents of the genes, but . . . I found this discussion on chromosomes at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes.

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs; apes have 24. 22 of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2). [Yunis and Prakash 1982]

The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined. [IJdo et al. 1991]

A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome. [Avarello et al. 1992]

Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses). [Lilith 2003; Max 2003]

And now back to our regular material from El_Guereo:

Second, you said that it has taken millions of years for the development of the present (extant) human race's genetic varieties ... The last I saw - Our species was under 50,000 years old - but you could point me to something that is new evidence that WE have been around for millions of years ...

??? Obviously, the precusors were more and more close to being human until finally they were human. Lucy wasn't human. Lucy was only on the way to being human. But thanks for the soft pitch.

Third, why did it take scientific method (read this as man) an additional 3000+ years, AFTER Moses gave a very accurate description of creation, to ADD even a single (that should be read as ONE) scientific discovery about the advent of the world and the development of its species.

Hmmm. What about the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes, made by Hipparchus, who compared the positions of the stars in his day with those recorded earlier? What about the accurate measurement of the earth's circumference by Erastosthenes?

Do you really want the missing link?

Irrelevant to this thread. As are the rest of your comments.

I don't mean to be dismissive. We need to tread carefully here. There was once a full fledged discussion catagory on this board for discussion of the creation/evolution debate, and it was always active, we were having that "fun" you mentioned, but it was discontinued. It is in the archives and you can read it if you want. Since that freeze, there have been some who have stridently posted threads against evolution, and those of us who accept the findings of science have replied. After several of those, I did start this one thread myself. It's about the rotation of the earth. Mostly, we Baptists who accept the findings of science merely reply to threads already started by others, out of respect to the intention of those who run this board to not have a creation/evolution debate area. I suppose if you REALLY WANT to discuss the ideas you put forth you could start your own thread. You will not lack, then, for replies.

I'm not sure how long those who run this board will put up with regular posts about evolution after freezing the evolution section of the board! But . . . on the other hand . . . what were they THINKING? It's going to keep coming up over and over! Don't they want Baptists to be prepared for the ideas floating around out there? But I digress.

Do you lay out a rule that the Bible must always be interpreted literally regardless of the findings of modern science?

Do you meanwhile break your own rule and accept the findings of science regarding the rotation of the earth as the cause of day and night?

That's what I'd like to know, in this thread, about your bible interpretation choices.

 

[El_Guero]

PAUL

MEA CULPA ... I RESPONDED TO THE PRESENT THREAD AND YOU REBUKE ME FOR NOT FOLLOWING

your little rules ...

 

[El_Guero]

Paul,

you asked "That's what I'd like to know, in this thread, about your bible interpretation choices. [sic]"

I answered that - next time READ ...

And yes you did intend to be dismissive. Therefore, you got a dismissive method of polemic.

I would guess that you are just spoiling for argumentation and not discussion. If you change your mind - and a little of the attitude, I enjoy discussion.

Just in case you are not clear about my answer - God is the missing link. Even clearer - without God, science is a modern religion - deceiving the masses. And the priests leave their god at the door and attack the True God.

I answered YOUR ALLOWED PART OF THIS THREAD. You made the rules. And I will move on.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

I'm sorry, my reading comprehension skills aren't good enough to go to your post and find the answers to the questions I raised and you claim to have answered. Please take pity on a reading challenged fellow poster and spell it out for me. I can't even tell from your post if you are a flat earther or not! Not saying you are - just that I can't read minds.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Paul of Eugene and UTEOTW and those who believe like you are aligning yourselves with fools. You will believe what a scientist says over what God says. You think your science has the answer to all the mysteries of the universe. God must surely laugh at your feeble attempts to understand His creation. I pity you on the day that you answer for these demonic beliefs you have set up in place of what the Lord actually says in His holy Word.

Rom 1:25
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(KJV)

 

[BobRyan]

Terry,

Sadly for the Christian evolutionists here - the problem is that they do NOT listen to scientists WHEN those scientist find in support of Scripture. EVEN when atheist scientist that speak on the most fact-challenged doctrines of evolutionism - Christian evolutionists typically turn a "blind eye" to anything disconfirming their belief and faith in the junk science principles of evolutionism.

We have explored this on other threads at length.

Their ability to turn a blind eye to "inconvenient facts" in efforts to cling to their "Stories" is well documented.

And then you have the obvious question that would follow - which is "what kind of damage does that evolution-at-all-costs fact-challenged model of evolutionists do to the integrity of the Bible and the Gospel"?

They like to pretend you can cut-and-splice your way through scripture and "it has no effect on the Gospel".

However that myth too - has been debunked here.

In Christ,

Bob