Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Indeed - using exegesis to determine what the text is saying rather than using one's faith in thy mythologies of evolutionism as a lense to read scripture.

It seems obvious - but in fact it is logical and reasonable. It has already been shown that evolutionism does not tolerate critical thinking and attempts to abuse the text of scripture by interpreting it through the lense of faith in a humanist view of nature - is a prime example.

Dawkings seems to get that point as do Christians that use exegesis to evaluate the meaning of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said -- "Notice that your argument is that the DETAILS of the Bible are not trustworthy."

Except where it obviously and clearly contradicts the doctrines and myths of evolutionism.

Except when you confess that the Bible uses a creationist model BECAUSE the people were too ignorant for the truth that God created nothing - rather unnatural and improbable, mythical processes did. In that argument that you make - you show that you do NOT actually believe what the text SAYS.

Impossible to miss.

I see - "True as in I can not believe it" truth??

I see -- "Words spoken to the ignorant that no informed person could believe" truth??

You have many odd ways of presenting double-speak to justify the many positions you have taken.

What words??!! You said that the language used (creationism) was only used because the people were ignorant.

OR do you claim that Dawkings frames the myths of evolution as "For in SIX DAYS the LORD created the Heavens and the Earth the SEA and ALL that is in them"??

Please be specific with the actual words in the text.

This has been the point since the opening post. You are avoiding the text -- (when not claiming that its creationist language was used because the listeners were too ignorant for the truth).

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "rules" for interpreting scripture - are those of exegesis NOT the rule of using the myths of evolutionism as a LENSE to rework the the Word of God.

The rule you are inventing here - is impossible, subjective or reliable. It's foible that changes with every changing wind of evolutionism's latest theory.

Some critical thinking would serve you here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nope. I am addressing it - you are avoiding the point above "again".

#1. The Molecules-to-man mythology NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in entropy as EVEN your OWN quote from Asimov confesses.

(are you still following the point? - because here comes part 2 "again")

#2. Asimov already confessed that when viewing biological systems INCLUDING humans we all OBSERVE the expected INCREASE in entropy in the form of forces driving those systems to DECAY and DISORDER.

This is "ASIMOV" and NOT some "Bible Believing Christian" so no need to trash him or "pretend" that you don't know what he is saying.

#3. Now - using a little critical - objective thinking - we are enabled to combine point #1 - above with point #2 to arrive at the "obvious" --- again.

Still trying to avoid the obvious problem above UTEOTW?

I am curious as to why you think that avoiding the facts listed - and ADMITTED even by your own icon (one so high as an atheist evolutionist no less) - will ever form a "compelling response"??

Why not simply address the point?

Do you "See" yet that IF Asimov is right about OBSERVING INCREASE in entropy in biological systems and SPECIFICALLY human biology THEN finding that you NEED a "massive DECREASE" is a problem not emperically solved - since what we SEE in the expected INCREASE in those very biological systems?

OR will you still "pretend" you don't get the point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

So how is it that killing, starving, and inflicting deiseases on hominids "results in the image of God"??

How could such a "creature FALL"?

How many human brothers/cousins/sisters did Adam have?

Was there an Adam?

Did he "fall into sin"?

What was the sin?

I mean since you seem to want to marry the Gospel to the myths of evolutionism - what text of scripture shows your scenario above?

In Christ,

Bob

 

While Psalm 104 was certainly written post-fall, it describes events that happened during creation (please read the whole psalm if you doubt this). There is no hint from the psalm that God's providence in supplying food started post-fall.

In any case, are you claiming that what God considers a "good thing" changes over time? I believe in an unchanging God. We may change, and he may deal with us differently because of that (even to the point of "winking at" some evils), but God doesn't change, and his definition of good and evil most certainly doesn't change. Since I know from this psalm that prey for a lion is a good thing direct from God's own hand, I have no doubt that God could have considered it a good thing from the beginning of creation.

 

So lets focus on that for a second.

#1. You are saing that the believer in evolutionism allows himself to "see" that the Bible is NOT proclaiming evolutionism - but is proclaiming creationism (using terms that people like Dawkings would never use to describe evolutionism).

And "obviously" right to see this obvious point.

#2. You are saying that the "details" of that creationist language though not reliable - are placed there because the ignorant people of the Bible needed them - but more informed people today would think of death, decay, disease, starvation and carnage instead of "And God said let there be..."

The Bible accepting - Bible believing Christian in this contrast you are drawing - would have to assume that God ALLOWED us to see that entropy drives all biological sytems toward decay.

The Bible believing Christian allows himself to "SEE" that amino acids in living cells ALL have left handed chiral orientation - even though experiments to produce those amino acids always result in random distributions.

The Bible BELIEVING Christian allows himself to "See" that evolutionism - is based purely on speculation and myth. It relies on obscure fabrications using "guesswork as proof".

The Bible Believing Christian must not "assume" Adam was created as a "zygote" but rather that he was "apparently and adult" when in fact he was one day old.

The Bible beliving Christian must not "Assume" that plants all started as seeds - thus starving all animal life to death in the first weeks - while wating for plants to grow. They must rather accept that the plants had food available by the 5th and 6th days when animals were created. (EVEN though that makes them LOOK old).

But best of all - Bible believing Christians (in this contrast you have proposed) get to use "exegesis" to find out what the Bible is saying - AND they get to accept the Word of God as it reads and would be understood by the primary audience.

Indeed - because as you admitted the "text" is written in creationist terms for the "ignorant peoples of Bible times" so in fact the TEXT does say that life on this planet and mankind were all made in the same literal 7 day creation week.

It is not "imagined" that the Bible says that - as you have already stated - the Bible DOES say God created all life on this earth in one single week - and you claim it does so for the ignorant readers of Bible times.

But to "pretend" that the Bible DOES NOT say - what you have already admitted that it DOES say - makes not sense. Even atheist evolutionists can see that it is SAYING that all life was created on earth during creation week by divine commands given on each of the 7 "evening and mornings".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe in paying attention to the Word of God. God said that thornes and thistles would grow after the fall, God said that man would die and return to dust after the fall. In Romans 8 Paul says all of creation suffers death and decay because of that fall.

I believe it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "rules" for interpreting scripture - are those of exegesis NOT the rule of using the myths of evolutionism as a LENSE to rework the the Word of God.

The rule you are inventing here - is impossible, subjective or reliable. It's foible that changes with every changing wind of evolutionism's latest theory.

Some critical thinking would serve you here.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Bob, why do you not apply some "critical thinking."

The point I made was that there are cases where you do not follow your own rules for interpreting scripture, else you would be a flat earth, geocentrist advocate.

I gave you several examples above, complete with verses and everything. Now your challenge is to show how you know the world to be spherical and that the earth orbit the sun solely following the rules of interpretation you have expressed.

The salient point is that you cannot. You know the earth is spherical because of knowledge you bring in from outside of the Bible. By your oen rules of interpretaion, you can show no other answer other than a flat earth. By your own rules of interpretation, you can show no other result than geocentrism.

Give us the critical thinking which you are after. Use the rules for interpretation that you insist upon to show differently.

The short answer is that you cannot. The evidence for a spherical earth is convincing to you so you willingly re-interpret. Yet you condemn those who do the same as you for not following rules that you yourself do not follow.

 

Nope. I am addressing it - you are avoiding the point above "again".

#1. The Molecules-to-man mythology NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in entropy as EVEN your OWN quote from Asimov confesses.

(are you still following the point? - because here comes part 2 "again")

#2. Asimov already confessed that when viewing biological systems INCLUDING humans we all OBSERVE the expected INCREASE in entropy in the form of forces driving those systems to DECAY and DISORDER.

This is "ASIMOV" and NOT some "Bible Believing Christian" so no need to trash him or "pretend" that you don't know what he is saying.

#3. Now - using a little critical - objective thinking - we are enabled to combine point #1 - above with point #2 to arrive at the "obvious" --- again.

Still trying to avoid the obvious problem above UTEOTW?

I am curious as to why you think that avoiding the facts listed - and ADMITTED even by your own icon (one so high as an atheist evolutionist no less) - will ever form a "compelling response"??

Why not simply address the point?

Do you "See" yet that IF Asimov is right about OBSERVING INCREASE in entropy in biological systems and SPECIFICALLY human biology THEN finding that you NEED a "massive DECREASE" is a problem not emperically solved - since what we SEE in the expected INCREASE in those very biological systems?

OR will you still "pretend" you don't get the point?</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for proving my point.

You claim that evolution requires a decrease in entropy. I agree.

I say that local decreases in entropy are allowed. Elsewhere I have even given you the theoretical details including the relevent equations. I have also provided you with examples where systems spontaneously decrease in entropy.

I ask what does entropy prevent from happening. You answer that evolution requires a local decrease in entropy.

You have not answered the question. To quote Will "It is a tale ... full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing." You failed, again, to tell us what entropy prevents from happening in evolution. The answer is nothing. There is not one step in the evolution of life on earth prevented by entropy. You know this or you would have simply listed that step for us. Instead you give us many words but no answers. The game is up.

You always have the option of proving that local decreases in entropy are not allowed. My offer to personally send your nomination to the Nobel committee stands if you can do so.

 

BobRyan just doesn't get it about thermodynamics and entropy.

All life manages a local decrease in entropy - without that we'd be dead. Growing up, having kids, hoping the kids do better than we did - are all made possible by that fact.

Every time there is a local decrease in entropy, there must be an engine that operates to decrease that entropy. It does so at the expense of creating greater entropy elsewhere in the universe, which we all accept perfectly happily when we use heat engines, work our refrigerator, grow up and have kids, etc.

The engine that evolutionists claim drives evolution is differential survival from random mutations over time. It is easy to see where the extra entropy goes - as it is shed into the environement all the time by the living creatures involved.

The only way BobRyan can prove that entropy is a problem for evolution is by proving the differential survival mechanism does not work.

But if he could do this, he could use that proof immediately to disprove evolution, and dragging in entropy would be totally useless.

The dragging in of entropy, therefore, simply shows that BobRyan is without serious arguements for his side and must raise that particular smokescreen instead.

 

Before I get on to my next topic, I came across this this morning and thought it might be applicable.

YECers must always claim that all of the human ancestors were fully modern humans or that they were fully non-human apes. The entertainment value comes in looking about by looking at how different young earthers draw that line at different places and at looking at how physcially different the specimens can be that they will claim are actually modern humans. All (at least I do not of any who do not) YECers will claim that Neanderthals were fully modern humans. Now this ignores basic physiology but this does not seem to bother them.

But I found a paper [Ovchinnikov, I. V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Liden, K., GoodwinW. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000).] on DNA testing of Neanderthal remains. The paper talks about tests of a sample DNA from a Neanderthal from the Caucasus mountains of Russia and comparisons of that DNA to that of the first Neanderthal specimen found, the Feldhofer, and to that of modern humans. I will provide a link to and quote from an article written about the paper.

"But the Feldhofer Neanderthal DNA seems to be distinct from the DNA of any modern human, irrespective of racial or geographical origin. The Caucasus Neanderthal DNA now confirms this: it is closer to the Feldhofer DNA than to any modern human... But the Caucasus DNA and the Feldhofer DNA are quite distinct, having a 3.48&percnt; difference in sequence. This is comparable to differences between humans of different ethnic or geographic origins, and is not surprising given that the Feldhofer and Caucausus individuals lived 2,500 kilometres and tens of thousands of years apart."

So these two Neanderthal samples have differences in DNA between them in line with the variation found within modern humans but their DNA is far outside the variation actually found within truely modern humans. Therefore, these were not modern humans. And this agrees with the data from the physiology of Neanderthals and humans and it agrees with the different kinds of artifacts found with remains of Neanderthals and humans.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/000330/000330-8.html

 

I have two posts I want to make on the problems with the fossil record in a young earth paradigm, but I have only time for one now. I'll get you another later.

Gup20 has already shown us that he likes the Baumgardner model. Well take a look at this article of his. http://www.icr.org/research/jb/patternsofcirculation.htm

In this article, he claims that the velocity of the flood waters over the continents would have been 40 - 80 m/s. That is about 130 to 260 ft/sec. Now, think about what effects such velocites would have on what we see in the geologic and fossil record.

The second thing you need to consider is what is known as Stoke's Law. This tells us what the terminal velocity of a particle would be. From this, we can tell what fluid velocity would be sufficient to kep a particle suspended and how long it would take a particle to settle out in calm waters.

Now, without doing the calculations myself, I would wager that velocites of 130 to 260 feet per second would be sufficient to keep objects in suspension that would be measured in feet. Certainly no fine particles would be salted out.

Now, how does this affect the fossil record? One of the things YECers like to claim is that well preserved fossils and fossils of delicate parts are evidence for a young earth indicating rapid burial. But we can see that these kinds of velocities would not produce preservation of delicate creatures. They also would not allow for rapid burial. I will assert that after a few months in these kinds of conditions, there would be little left to be buried. This is inconsistent with what we actually find and is proof that the flood could not account for the fossil record.

Now, geology. As the velocites subsided, progressively smaller particles would settle out. So, you would expect when looking at the sedimentary rocks on the continents (and I will suggest everywhere) that you would find them sorted by size and density. The bottom layers would be jumbles of boulders with progressively smaller rocks as you work your way up. The topmost layers would be very fine and silty material. You would also find that such turbulence for such lengths would completely preclude any distinct layers. Everything should be a well mixed, muddy, sandy stone.

But instead we find distinct layers that we can tie to forming under specific coditions. We find layers of limestone. Even better, in places we find thick layers of chalk. (Observed rates of chalk deposition range from 1 - 10 centimeters per 1000 yeras. The largest particles in chalk will only settle out at velocities of less than 1.5 centimeters per second and even slower for smaller particles. Plus chalk is made from living organisms which have to grow and die for the chalk to be formed.)

 

Before the second post that I have promised, I came across an interesting article today on CNN.com that brings up another potential problem. Let me quote the article first.

"The team says that the ancient hippopotamus were larger than today's species and weighed about six-seven tonnes, compared to modern hippos that weigh up to four tonnes. They had very prominent eyes which served as periscopes when submerged in the water. It is likely the hippos discovered died through natural causes and their bones show evidence of having being gnawed by hyenas.
"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/01/uk.gainthippos/index.html

The part that I bolded alludes to another infrequently discussed aspect of the fossil record that argues against the usual young earther explanation of the fossil record. The broad field is called Taphonomy. Taphonomy is concerned with all of the factors that contribute to an organism becoming a fossil and includes things that affected the life of the organism, how the organism died, the process of taking the dead organism and putting it in a state that it will fossilize, the fossilization process itself, and what happens to the fossil during subsequent history. What I have quoted is directly related to a part of this called Biostratinomy. Genrally, these are all the things that happen to the organism from death until it is entombed.

Now, young earthers insist that most if not all fossils were formed over a very short period of time and through catastrophe. I assert that Biostratinomy shows that this is not the case. For instance, in the quote above, we see that the bones had been gnawed by hyenas. This would be quite unlikely during the catastrophe that the young earthers insist was responsible for all of the fossils. And this is not an isolated case. Many, many fossils show such signs of scavenging that should not be possible given the conditions insisted upon by the young earthers.

But, we can take this further. Through the study of Taphonomy, one can determine the conditions in which the fossil was preserved. Unfortunately for them, the conditions generally do not match what they assert. The set of conditions varies wildly from their ideas.

The fossil record is inconsistent with a young earth.

 

Now for the second post I wanted to make. Biogeography is inconsistent with a young earth. There are many aspects to biogeography, but I would like to explore one in particular. I briefly mentioned it earlier.

The continent of Australia contains a very unique set of creatures. Australia has been essentially isolated for most of the last 100 million years. At the time, marsupial variety. So the fauna of Australia has been dominated throughout this time by the marsupials. Without competition from placentals, the marsupials evolved to fill all the niche rales for mammals. The fossil record gives us many interesting marsupials. There were the propleopines, giant kangaroos that weighed up to about 130 lbs in some species. Some of these kangaroos become hunters. The thylacinids were another group of marsupials. They filled in the niche that canines hold in other parts of the world. Through convergent evolution, they even came to resemble wolves. The last of these died out early last century and could have been mistaken for a canine by the casual observer. There are 12 known species from the fossil record. The thylacoleonids filled the role of felines and even had some cat-like traits evolve. There were eight known species from the fossil record. Many other fossil marsupials are known, such as the rhino sized Diprotodon.

Now the interesting thing is that the fossils for all these creatures are found only in Australia while their descendents also are only found in Australia. This fits as biogeographic evidence for evolution and is inconsistent with a young earth. A young earth, with all the fossils produced in a single large catastrophe does not explain why the marsupials resettled in the same place where the fossils were found. The evidence fits much better with the assumption that the unique fauna is due to long term geographic isolation.

 

Isaac Asimov "gets it" about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. IT DOES apply to biological systems and although he confesses that the mythologies of evolutionism DO "require" a "Massive DECREASE in entropy" - what we actually "observe in creation" is an INCREASE in entropy when it comes to human biological systems.

UTEOTW loves to "pretend" that this obvious "problem" for evolutionists should be "ignored" - that we should all hold hands, close our eyes and "pretend we don't see the problem".

Well... that's one way to deal with facts UTEOTW - but I prefer a more objective model.

UTEOTW keeps asking what we mean by "MAssive Decrease" in entropy needed to account for biological evolution from molecule-to-man and seems not to notice that Asimove "Observes" a local INCREASE in entropy (rather than a MAssive Decrease) when we observe every day living human systems.

On the other hand Asimov "insists" on consistent observation of a local INCREASE in entropy driving human biological systems toward decay "individually"

</font>[/QUOTE]Asimov claims that this consistent observation in creation - of local human systems - showing the effects of increased entropy is what "the second law is ALL about". I believe him - don't you?

No?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Fascinating as that misdirection is....

The point remains.

God DID apoint Adam and Eve for LIFE but warned them of DEATH if they ATE of the tree of knowledge (you know - the fall of mankind, the gospel, mankind has something to be saved FROM...etc) - Same God - CHANGE in the earth according to Romans 8.

But Psalms 104 "can not" be woodenly constrained "as if" it is only describing the acts of God during the 7 literal days of creation. Paying attention to that text - proves the point.

The rain - (Which Genesis 2 declares was not a part of the pre-flood creation system ) is contemporary to the psalmist.

And it is "mankind" that is working - the text can not be woodenly confined to the literal 7 days of creation week. The Psalmist covers many time frames in Ps 104.

Here we find a contemporary setting with the psalmist, mankind is working - and predators are prowling. UNLIKE the paradise we see in Isaiah 65:25 Where "wolf and lamb lie down together and the Lion eats starw like an ox."

Obviously God did not create ships for Adam to sail in - in the 7 literal days of Creation week.

The context does NOT limit itself to those 7 literal days.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This was soooo good (and has been avoided so "carefully" ) that it is worth repeating.

AFter all it "IS" on the topic of the thread.

The Bible accepting - Bible believing Christian in this contrast you are drawing - would have to assume that God ALLOWED us to see that entropy drives all biological sytems toward decay.

The Bible believing Christian allows himself to "SEE" that amino acids in living cells ALL have left handed chiral orientation - even though experiments to produce those amino acids always result in random distributions.

The Bible BELIEVING Christian allows himself to "See" that evolutionism - is based purely on speculation and myth. It relies on obscure fabrications using "guesswork as proof".

The Bible Believing Christian must not "assume" Adam was created as a "zygote" but rather that he was "apparently and adult" when in fact he was one day old.

The Bible beliving Christian must not "Assume" that plants all started as seeds - thus starving all animal life to death in the first weeks - while wating for plants to grow. They must rather accept that the plants had food available by the 5th and 6th days when animals were created. (EVEN though that makes them LOOK old).

But best of all - Bible believing Christians (in this contrast you have proposed) get to use "exegesis" to find out what the Bible is saying - AND they get to accept the Word of God as it reads and would be understood by the primary audience.

Indeed - because as you admitted the "text" is written in creationist terms for the "ignorant peoples of Bible times" so in fact the TEXT does say that life on this planet and mankind were all made in the same literal 7 day creation week.

It is not "imagined" that the Bible says that - as you have already stated - the Bible DOES say God created all life on this earth in one single week - and you claim it does so for the ignorant readers of Bible times.

But to "pretend" that the Bible DOES NOT say - what you have already admitted that it DOES say - makes not sense. Even atheist evolutionists can see that it is SAYING that all life was created on earth during creation week by divine commands given on each of the 7 "evening and mornings".
</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Still no response to this post --

Still waiting on this one...(And comparing the myths of evolutionism to the actual text of God's Word IS the subject of the thread - as you may "recall")

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobR, your "proofs" have all been shot down time and again; your "arguments" are manifestedly one man's opinion compared to another; and you NEVER RESPOND TO A QUESTION . . .

why should anyone take your verbage seriously, since you never answer any questions?

I really would like you to start with your justification for choosing to ignore the biblical view of the sun going around the earth. We need to know. Perhaps we have misjudged you and you are, indeed, consistent and you believe like Martin Luthor that Copernicus, Gallileo and other science believing scripture contradictoring folk are wrong and the sun DOES go around the earth.

Please, share share!