Religion of Evolution

Wow, missed your response (Bob). Lost in all the rest of the discussion.

That passage does not say that. It speaks of creation being "subjected in hope", and groaning and travailing, and eventually to be delivered, but does not say there who caused it other than "Him who subjected it". And it seems to be talking about all of creation, not just the earth.

But I had also said "the decay in the universe". We do see decay way beyond this world which is all God has committed to us. (Psalms 115:16) That cannot have been caused by our fall.

You're looking only at the maturation of living things. I was talking about rocks, stars, and stuff like that, where "age" is from a type of "decay" (gets older, not as fresh as when new).

It's not supposed to. Obviously, those who believe the Bible do not accept the "uniformitarianism" of science, so no, you can't "solve" anything to them. But as there was a Creation, there will be a new Creation. But at least it's nice to know that string theory allows for instantaneous change that breaks the uniformitarianism most science today assumes.

 

I find it interesting that the "quotes" you reference are not in regards to any theories od evolution, but to geology.

 

I find it interesting that the "quotes" you reference are not in regards to any theories od evolution, but to geology. </font>[/QUOTE]The geological column--never found anywhere in the world--is one of the pillars of evolution. It is from the geological column that you find the different strata from which the fossils are found and thereby dated. How do we know how old how the fossils are? He know how old the fossils are by what strata (Cambrium, pre-cambrium, etc.) that the fossils are found in. How do we know how old the various strata are? We know how old the strata are by how old the fossils are?
A child can think more logically than that. Yet that circular reasoning is the basis of evolution. It is the pillar and ground of the "truth" of their religion.
DHK

 

The circular reasoning is only in your mind. Some of the layers you can date directly. Some you cannot date directly. As it turns out, when you look at different layers, you find that only certain fossils are found together in the same layer. Wherever on the earth you look, you find the same groups of fossils together. Now, when you find these groups in layers that can be dated directly, you find that you get the same age for the same group no matter where they are found. Now, if a layer cannot be dated directly, then you can use the fossils found in that layer to estimate the age because you have already determined from multiple other locations that the particular mix of fossils always dates to the same age. It is not circular, it is logical. But, you can take it further. You can look at the layers above and below the layer you are interested in. Once you date them, you have bracketed the age in which your layer must be. This increases the confidence that you have the correct age.

According to a young earth with recently created kinds, this type of work should be impossible. Since every creature was alive at the same time, their fossils should be hopelessly mixed together. This is a prediction that logically follows from a young earth. But it is not what we find in the ground. With an old earth, on the other hand, you would only expect that only a small fraction of everything that had ever lived would be alive at a given instant in time and thus found together in a given layer. This is exactly what we find in the world. Just one more evidence for an old earth.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That proposal [death before Adam] was clearly debunked in the review we did of Romans 8 - where Paul clearly says that the death decay and corruption of nature itself was imposed on it due to the sin of Adam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 8 in fact says

Notice how you have sifted through the "details" and skimmed out of it only "subjected in hope" - deleting all the "slavery to Corruption" and "suffering".

Notice it is that "slavery to corruption" that many translators identify as "death and decay".

The point is clear.

The contradictions in evolutionisms doctrines with that of God's Word are also clear. Evolutionism teaches its followers that "corruption, death, disease, extenction, starvation and tooth-and-claw survival was the original peaceful/sinless order ordained by God for mankind and all of creation.

The wonderful "paradise" from which man "fell". (If you mix evilutionism with the Gospel).

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan - as for the creation itself "longing to be delivered", of course you and I both know that rocks and even trees don't thing about being "delivered" literally. But I'll share with you how I interpret these verses, and while we certainly don't agree, you'll see I don't ignore them.

As for the reign of death, as I stated before, the scriptures speak of the fall of man bringing on death, but death for mankind is, I believe, the death that is spoken of. Outside the garden of eden, predators prowled, parasites and fleas existed, plants had thorns; inside the garden, it was different, because God intended man to extend the garden to the whole earth.

It is after the fall that man was expelled from the garden and found the parasites, thorns, etc.

By the way, do you really believe that the hand of God moved to make fleas and malaria and smallpox and plague the evils that they are?

Now about the bondage of creation to death and decay. These I take to be references to the state of the world outside the garden as it was when Adam was innocent continuing until now, and as Adam was once intended to spread the garden over the whole earth (and even beyond? who knows?even so the law of death and decay will be overcome by the second Adam for the whole earth at His coming.

So every where you read that Adam brough death into the whole world, I interpret in my mind that Adam was bring death to the world of mankind, just as Jesus died for the sins of the whole world - oh, only men can sin, isn't that so?

Now I know you will never agree with me but please be aware that I have explained how I deal with these verses.

 

You wish. You are not telling the truth here. Fossils are found mixed all over the earth in all layers. On the tops of the mountains one finds shale and marine fossils. How do you account for that? The only thing that a fossil points to is death, and nothing else. Fossils speak of death, and fossils of every kind are found all over the world. If I bury the remains of my father over the remains of a pig, and a farmer finds them ten years later, does that mean my father has descended from a pig?? Yet that is the thinking of the evolutionist. Fossils speak of death and nothing more.

Creation Science

There is evidence of fossils of man and dinosaurs at the same and place. What does that prove--that they lived at the same time, and that they died. Fossils are an indication of death.
DHK

 

Nothing in yo post supports your assertion that fossils are dated by a circular means. I explained in a simplified manner how layers can be dated using a combination of index fossils, radiometric dating, and other dating methods and why the use of index fossils to date other fossils in the layer is not flippant. Your response is a flippant "You wish" and then to level a serious charge of lying on me. That is not appreciated. Where did I lie?

"Fossils are found mixed all over the earth in all layers."

Let's be honest here. Fossils are found mixed in layers all over the world. But not all fossils are found mixed in particular layers all over the world. That is the key point. If every type of animal that had ever lived was alive at the same point in time then you would expect to find everything more or less randomly mixed together in the ground. But that is not what we see at all. Only a very narrow slice of life is found at any one layer. You will never find human remains with dinosaur remains. For that matter, you will never find fossils of grasses with dinosaur fossils! The way fossils are found in the ground is consistent with an old earth in which only a select group of organisms were alive at any given point. It is inconsistent with all "kinds" being recently created and alive at the same time.

BTW, what is a "kind?" Do you define it at the level of species? Genus? Family?

"On the tops of the mountains one finds shale and marine fossils. How do you account for that?"

I explain that quite easily. The geology is obviously such that the fossils were layed down in a marine environment. Later, geologic forces uplifted this sedimentry material to form a mountain range. The geology will support this. For example you should see folded and fractured layers from the forces that lifted the mountains. There are many places around the world where this can be seen. The Himalayas, i believe, are composed of sedimentary rock uplifted by the collision of the Indian plate with the Asian plate. So, how do you explain marine sediments at the tops of mountains along with the associated geology?

"If I bury the remains of my father over the remains of a pig, and a farmer finds them ten years later, does that mean my father has descended from a pig?? Yet that is the thinking of the evolutionist."

Strawman. Not even anything close enough to reality to comment on.

"Fossils speak of death and nothing more."

Your assertion is that we can learn nothing from the fossils? Can we learn how the animal died? Can we learn under what conditions it was preserved as a fossils? Can we look at other fossils found with it and determine the ecology of where it lived? If the stomach contents fossilized can we learn directly what it ate? Can we determine what general types of food it ate from its teeth and jaws? Can we determine parts of how it lived from the form (which leads to function) of its skeleton? Fossils speak of more than death. They also speak of life and how it lived.

"Polystrate tree passing through sedimentary rock suggesting rapid depostion."

Yes, and your point?

In many places, polystrate trees only enjoy a satisfying explanation in an old earth scenario. There are many places where multiple coal seams are found layered on top of each other with other layers in between. Often they will contain polystrate trees. Now, in each layer of coal you se certain things when you examine the layer. You can see where the polystrate tree was growing on the top of the layer of peat that eventually formed the coal. Its roots can clearly be seen growing in the now coal. The whole layer was buried at once and later turned into coal. But then, each layer above will show the same. The trees with direct evidence that they were growing in the layer of peat that formed the coal. So, you had to accumulate a layer of peat, you had to get a full grown tree (trees actually) on top of this, you had to bury it all, then you had to repeat the process several times. How do you explain this?

"There is evidence of fossils of man and dinosaurs at the same and place."

That is a strong assertion. Prove it.

"http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=DinosaursAndFossils&varPage=PolystrateFossils.htm"

Now, speaking of lying. What do you think of someone who goes around calling himself doctor who holds a doctorate only from a diploma mill?

 

I did not ignore those They still do not say that the whole universe's corruption was from the sin of man. And as for the use of the word "death", the death of man in the fall is a result of something else that had occurred before. It did not just pop out of nowhere. If an evil being tempted them into sinning, there was already a force of "death" in the universe, and physical death stemmed from spiritual death.

 

Now mudslinging is the lamest kind of defence possible. I don't know where he got his doctorate, and it really doesn't matter to me. Since you have brought up the topic of qualifications, and because this is specifically the thread entitled "Religion of Evolution," let's consider the qualifications of Charles Darwin himself. When Darwin entered university, he originally entered after the footsteps of his father in the field of medicine. But he found that boring and quickly left it. He took some courses in science, but eventually went into theology and earned a B.A. in theology. Darwin's testimony is very interesting. Listen to Darwin in his own words:

Darwin and the Christian Faith

Darwin was a Christian. He believed in Christianity. He had a degree in theology. Then, gradually, he rejected it. He replaced it with the religion of evolution. It was a religiion, as is recorded, that has an essentially materialistic and deterministic view of mankind. This is humanism, the basis of evolution. This is what Darwin replaced his Christianity with. It is the religion of evolution.
DHK

 

No matter how much you repeat the mantra that evolution is a religion it will remain only a part of the science of biology. Humanism will never be the basis of evolutionary science; the evidence found in the field will continue to be the basis of that science. What people do in their philosopical endeavors may involve taking parts of science along for the ride; but that is not the fault of the findings of science.

 

I think Paul answered that as well as possible.

You'll notice that I countered the argument that you attempted to make from "Dr." Dino's website first. You completely ignored 90% of my post. And I think it is fair to point out that your source calls himself "doctor" based on a diploma mill degree. This is fair because the use of "doctor" to describe someone usually implies education well above and beyond what most people get and gives some confidence that the individual is an expert in whatever he is choosing to discuss. But he calls himself "doctor," even puts it in his domain name, on a degree that is not worth the paper it is printed on.

You failed to address how geologic dating is circular. You failed to address why we do not find the different types of fossils mixed together in a way consistent with a young earth. You failed to define what you think a "kind" is. You failed to discuss how you think marine fossils get to the tops of mountain ranges and how to explain the geologic folding, faulting, and other characteristics that go along with it. You failed to answer whether we can learn anything about the life of an animal from its fossil. You failed to show where polystrate fossils support your position. You failed to give us the evidence that dinosaur and human fossils have been found together in the same geologic layer.

 

Please take the Romans 8 text and show "how this works". Plugging in your definition into the text - makes no sense.

Try it and you will see.

Try it and "Show" that it works.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

This is pure speculation.

Your argument is that "starvation, extinction, disease, death, law-of-tooth-and-claw carnage" reigned as king outside of the garden because that is your idea of "God spoke and it was". This is opposed to the text not only of Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 but also it is directly opposed to what we find in Romans 8 about the "source" of death in "creation".

So no fleas in the Garden? No extinction? No evolution? No starvation? No disease? No predators? No law-of-tooth-and-claw carnage? Plants without thornes

-- How was "man supposed to extend that miracle" into the rest of the diseased and predatory world being created by God?

How was man to "make a garden that would have no disease, malaria, parasites, predators, thornes" go into all the world?

Was man "a god"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

God did not create the abberant behavior of the living organisms initially placed on earth. But rather just like the emergence of the total depravity of the human nature - the SINFUL nature, at the fall - so also the other living systems of earth entered a "decay process" that produced both predatory and defensive systems built in. Like a scab on the skin that is not "intended" as a beauty mark but is necessary in the case of injury. The defensive and survival systems within the various organisms only emerge in response to hostile decay in the environment.

Then you attribute it to God and not the fall. You charge God with "owning" the inception and creation of "disease, death, extinction, carnage, and the LAW of Tooth and Claw destruction of species" -- rather than a "temporary condition" that resulted from the fall and that God "solves" as part of the Gospel solution at the 2nd coming.

Fascinating!

Well at lest you admit that this decay death and futility "the suffering" and groaning - is in fact the death and decay in nature.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Fascinating! Probably an example of "data" that the doctrines and myths of evolutionism would not "tolerate" for long.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is obfuscation and not actual debate. IF you can show that the "doctor" quotes "himself" as "an authority" or as the "source" of proof for any point made in the argument - THEN you would have a point that an appeal to HIMSELF is not valid because you object to his credentials.

So - show the statement that relies on the author's education as "its proof".

(BTW - define "diploma mill". That is - what accreditation model are you using? Are you claiming that the state did not certify that institution? What do you know about it as fact?)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Darwin shows the same "consistent embrace" of the religion of evolutionism instead of the Gospels that Richard Dawkings so clearly shows to be "obvious" to the thinking mind. Clearly and obviously and consistenly - evolutionism directs its devotee away from the Gospels.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think I already covered that above. Did you read it?

If not, read the following for a more detailed reason why polystrate trees are not only not a problem for an old earth, but are in fact a problem for a young earth. Link Not only does this show how polystrate trees are formed, but young earthers then have the burden of explaining how you can get multiple layers all on top of one another of such trees all shown to have been grown in place.

 

Bob. He calls his website "Dr."Dino. Its right there in the domain name for his site. And you are ignoring the same thing that DHK did. I countered the argument first. Only then did I show the source to be a problem in itself. If I wanted to obfuscate I would have simply attacked the man. But I first went after the argument itself. I went after the good "doctor" not to counter the argument but as a warning against the reliability of the source to any who may be reading this.

Okay.

Emphasis mine.

Reference