KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

Evolution-A Religion or Not?

▼

Evolution-A Religion or Not?

It takes a lot of faith to believe it

from JoeUser Forums
Today the local newspaper printed an editorial response by my son David and I thought I'd share it. It was pretty good and many people around town alerted him to the fact it was in there as well as my husband while out and about. It was a response to an earlier article about evolution. Anyhow here it is.


Theory of Evolution

Evolution is fact? The evolution “theory” that is taught in classrooms today is nothing more then that- a theory. There are more holes in evolution then twelve Swiss cheese sandwiches! I would love for Mr. Sares to show me the scientific law that proves life can come from non-life, the very staple of evolution. That, however, is impossible because no such law exists; there are only theories of how this may occur. Look outside. Especially here in the Mountains we should be able to see with our own eyes the complexity of our earth in its beauty with the mountains and the gorgeous sunsets.

Look at yourself. The human body is the most complex thing on earth. This wasn’t an accident. Scientists say that although the chances of evolution are impossible, given enough time this impossibility becomes a possibility. They say that if I randomly picked a card from a deck of 52 cards enough times it’s possible that I could pick the ace of spades 100 times in a row, given enough time. But what are the chances of that ace of spades growing a head, a brain, legs and arms and starting up a conversation with me? That Mr. Sares is the possibility of the “theory” of evolution.

One Creationist, Kent Hovind, stated he would give $10,000 to anyone who could prove evolution scientifically. No one has come forward yet since he made this challenge- in 1990. Mr. Sares, I challenge you to take up this task and prove to all your readers that evolution is true science. In the meantime, why don’t we continue to teach our children that they are here by mistake, with no purpose in life and let’s continue wondering why they lack self-esteem.


David

One has to wonder why, in the absense of physical substance or actual evidence (the missing link) ,is evolution not somewhat faith-based? Perhaps it is because having faith in the theory of a missing link is more acceptable than having faith in an intelligent designer?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrew 11:1

Let's face it.....evolution is indeed a religion."
religion
28,957 views 282 replies
Reply #151 from JoeUser Forums Top
"there is one interpretation but many applications. As far as all the different groups? I've been in many of them over the years."


Hardly. Even if you don't consider the debate around interpreting the translations themselves, for metaphorical language there is rarely one interpretation.
Reply #152 from JoeUser Forums Top
for metaphorical language there is rarely one interpretation.


No, that's true and it depends on your definition of interpretation, what I'm saying is God meant it a certain way so he had one interpretation in mind as written. Many people have their own interpretations but that doesn't make it right. The bible has the answer in there. Like for instance I got into a very big discussion on that verse that Jesus said "where the body is the vultures are gathered together" with a Catholic believer. She wanted to believe the interpretation was that the body was an alive body (Eucharist) and her Catholic version said eagles instead of vultures. So herinterpretation was the Catholics with eagle eyes are always watching for the Eucharist. Huh? That's what I said.

Well so we went to the Latin and the Greek (every version of Greek) and without doubt the word was corpse. No getting around it. Christ was talking about a dead body. But you know what? I think she still wanted to hang onto her interpretation. So in that sense you're right. But there is only one real interpretation, and it's not mine, hers, or yours. It's HIS. The problem is....people really don't want the truth. That's really what I find to be truth.

Another one in Revelation. Jesus says...."Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in to him....." Well in context he is talking the church. We see him standing outside his own church. A famous painting shows a beautiful church with Christ outside and the doorknob on the inside. Now many interpret that to be Christ knocking on the door of their hearts. If we just open it up, he'll come in. But that's not the interpretatiom and doesn't mesh with the rest of scripture. You can apply it that way....sort of I guess. I believe in context he's appealing to the wordly compromising believers in the church. And boy do we have lots in this category......including me previously. I no longer am willing to compromise truth for popular opinion.





The Political Machine 2024
Reply #153 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't believe dinosaurs and people lived on the planet at the same time (but then I don't see Genesis as literal either), but I do sometimes wonder about certain things like the dragon myths common to almost all peoples. Maybe some species did survive for a while into the time of Man?


This is what I believe: Nothing in observational science contradicts the obvious conclusion based on the Bible's history

1. Dinos were created alongside man.
2. They were on Noah's ark
3, Most dino fossils are from the flood
4, Dinos lived with man after the flood but like other animals and plants became extinct.

I don't think it's odd to believe this. I think it's the most logical.

Ham said that almost every time there's news in the secular world about Aig the reporter will mock the fact that they believe dinos and humans have lived at the same time. He said this:

"Evolutionists absolutely hate it when AiG uses dinos to proclaim the falsity of the idea of evolution and the truth of the history in Genesis. Nearly every secular reporter who visits the AiG Creation Museum seems perplexed as to why we're including dinosurs and they often express amazement that we would even dare to do so. When their TV or newspaper report comes out, there it is again, a mocking statement about dinos and humans together."

Dino's have been handed over to the evolutionists as icons and Ham said it's time we took them back. He believes it's for the purpose of indoctrinating generations in secular humanism. He believes the Christians basically handed the dinos over when they themselves abandoned the literal history as clearly communicated in Genesis.

According to evolutionary time crocodiles have been around since the time of the dinos and yet humans live with crocodiles today. So why is it odd that humans and dinos lived at the same time?

There are other examples outside the croc......there's a tree nicknamed the Wollemi pine is known from fossils classed as so- called Jurassic age. Humans and the Wollemi pine live today but from an evolutionary perspective the Wollemi pine dates back to the time of the dinos. It's called the "dinosaur tree."

And of course there's a lot of other intersesting evidence, such as dragon legends as you mentioned, the descriptuion of the Behemoth in Job 40, Indian petroglyphs that look like dinos and so on.

So I have no beef with the fact that dinos lived with man.
If Genesis cannot be taken literally, there is no foundation for Christian doctrine. Therefore Christian doctrine has no meaning. The whole foundation for Christianity is in those first 11 chapters. Without that the rest crumbles. That's exactly why Genesis is so attacked. It's the most attacked book of the bible...but did you know this.....there are at least 165 passages in Genesis that are either directly quoted or clearly referred to throughout the NT. Included are more than 100 quotes or direct references to Geneis 1-11. Every one of the NT authors refers in his writings to Gen 1-11. Every one of the first 11 chapters is alluded to in certain sections throughout the NT. A complete listing can be found in Dr. Henry Morris commentary on Genesis....."The Genesis Record" co published by the BAKER Book House and Creation Life Publishers. So throughout Genesis is quoted from or referred to more than any other book in the entire Bible. This indicates something of its importance. I would say the writers as well as Christ accepted Genesis as truth.
To believe otherwise you'd have to believe there was death before Adam and Eve and the scriptures are clear that it was sin that brought death to our world.






Reply #154 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most dino fossils are from the flood

And yet not a single human fossil has ever been found at the same level as a dinosaur fossil. A bit odd don't you think? Seems to me that if the flood disturbed the ground that as much as is that particular explaination for the dinosaur fossil levels, some human remains would also be found there as well. It doesn't wash.
Reply #155 from JoeUser Forums Top
1. Dinos were created alongside man.
2. They were on Noah's ark


That must have been a humongous ark. And Noah built it all by himself?

In ancient times, people weren't able to travel very far, so to them, "the world" was only what they could see.
Reply #156 from JoeUser Forums Top
"1. Dinos were created alongside man.
2. They were on Noah's ark
3, Most dino fossils are from the flood
4, Dinos lived with man after the flood but like other animals and plants became extinct."


  1. And yet in the strata where we find dinosaurs, we don't find human remains. Nor do we find dinosaur bones that aren't fossilized. If they lived 4 or 5 thousand years ago, don't you find it odd that we have NO dinosaur bones preserved that weren't fosilized? We most certainly have human and other bones from that period.

  2. You'd have to prove there was an ark before you can prove what was on it.

  3. And yet at the same time most of the human race was supposedly killed, too. So we have tons and tons of fossilized dinosaurs who died during the flood, and no human fossils from the flood. like the ark, though, you'd have to prove a world-wide flood before you could build on its existence.

  4. Likewise, we have lots of non-fossilized human bones for a few thousand years back, but not a single non-fossilized dinosaur bone. If dinosaurs were alive as little as 5 thousand years ago, from which time we actually have human writing, textiles, etc., why have we never, ever found dinosaur remains alongside the food we ate? Why have there been no non-fossilized remains of dinosaurs found?


If you have ANY proof, whatsoever, of a dinosaur and a human coexisting, post it. You demand transitional fossils for every step of evolution, and then you offer such a theory with NO PROOF AT ALL. Hypocritical? I think so.

The test of a theory is whether or not what it predicts occurs. You predict lots of things that simply aren't found. No human fossils alongside dinosaurs. No dinosaur remains from 4 or 5 thousand years ago, etc. On the other hand science's prediction of NOT finding these things seem to be playing out. Don't you think?

If Genesis cannot be taken literally, there is no foundation for Christian doctrine. Therefore Christian doctrine has no meaning. The whole foundation for Christianity is in those first 11 chapters. Without that the rest crumbles."


And there is the heinous sin involved. There is where you put a book above everything else, including God. There's the idolatry I have noted time and time and time again. Your golden calf is paper and ink, and if it proves to just be an man-made creation, the depth and meaning is discarded.

I am speaking so candidly about it because what you are actually saying is that the beliefs of people who doubt the inerrancy of the Bible don't have any basis. Sure people in the Bible quote the Bible. People quote Shakespeare constantly. I tend to from time to time, but that doesn't mean Shakespeare is inerrant. The lady doth protest too much, methinks...
Reply #157 from JoeUser Forums Top
That must have been a humongous ark. And Noah built it all by himself?


It was huge but he had his three sons. But the dinos on board did not have to be full adults remember. Noah spent according the the scripture 120 years to build this thing.

In ancient times, people weren't able to travel very far, so to them, "the world" was only what they could see


well then why didn't he just leave? If he spent 120 yrs to build it, how far do you think he could have traveled in that amount of time? It takes me about 1 hour and 20 minutes to run 10 miles. You do the math.

Seems to me that if the flood disturbed the ground that as much as is that particular explaination for the dinosaur fossil levels, some human remains would also be found there as well.


that's a good point. I don't know why. I have ideas but it would only be guesswork. By the time of the flood I imagine they were being hunted for food or vise versa....but who knows what happened? No one came back to tell about it. I'm sure Ham will cover this completly in his new museum. He's confident of the fact they were together.

People quote Shakespeare constantly


And Shakespeare quoted scripture constantly.

If you have ANY proof, whatsoever, of a dinosaur and a human coexisting, post it.


I do but it's all scriptural and therefore not acceptable to you. And I've already said, we don't have the transitional fossils needed to prove Darwin's theory completely. He even said that would have to happen and it's not there. At least I've got something, I've got what I believe to be a written record. I've got Christ two thousand years ago verifying those records and I'm sorry if you can't accept that. I don't worship the book. I read it to be wise, I read it to know more about the God who created us and I read it for direction. I, as I've said before,do not separate Christ from his word, and I do believe it's God's letter to us. He's proven it to me repeatedly. I've seen things over the years that have shown me he is real and his word is real. It's a manual for right living and I do believe if we lived according to the precepts in it, this world would not be such as it is.

Over the years, I've seen a big difference in people who brought their families up according to this manual and those who didn't. That in itself is a huge witness to me, even to those who later in life wish they had heeded the directions therein.

am speaking so candidly about it because what you are actually saying is that the beliefs of people who doubt the inerrancy of the Bible don't have any basis


well it's like this Baker, if you had a boat, and it was a pretty good boat most of the time, but every once in a while it would sink while you were out on the water, would you load it up and go out to sea in it? Keep in mind, it's pretty good most of the time.

I sure as heck wouldn't. It hasn't been proven trustworthy. You just never know when it explodes and goes down.

I believe my foundation here with what the word of God says, is solid ground. You don't. So we'll agree to disagree. That's ok.





Reply #158 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And I've already said, we don't have the transitional fossils needed to prove Darwin's theory completely."


You should take Ham's advice and not lean on the transitional fossil thing. Asking for proof when you have even less isn't serving your argument. It takes a misunderstanding of the concept of transitional forms to make the statement in the first place.

"He even said that would have to happen and it's not there. At least I've got something, I've got what I believe to be a written record."


You realize that taken at that standard of evidence, every single religion on the face of the earth would be factual. Not just Christianity, mind you, but we'd have to admit that Islam and all the rest are, too. After all, if someone says they saw it, and the holy book of the religion says it is true, then it must be true, right?

I'm going to ask you again to simply do the honorable thing and hold your beliefs to the same standard you hold evolution, or stop pretending that both are on the same level as 'religion'. The real facts are, though, that the predictions about what we'd find made by Darwin have held up, and the ones made creationists haven't.

Where are the human fossils? Where are the non-fossilized dinosaur bones? Why has there never been a single shred of evidence that they coexisted? WHy when science predicts to find only particular fossils at particular strata from particular eras we do, and your prediction of finding humans alongside them never, ever pans out?

Hold your scientific assertions to the same standard you hold other people's and see how well they weigh out. If they weigh the same, then perhaps you can claim evolution is on the same level of faith as religion.


AND LETS NOT FORGET that most of what you are proposing here isn't even in the Bible. This is the gospel according to Mr. Ham in terms of when people lived and when dinosaurs lived and the ark, etc. So you really can't point to the Bible to prove your scientific ideas, because you are coming to those conclusions in order to validate your preconcieved idea of history.

That isn't science. In the presence of evidence against a theory science doesn't just create new accounts and hold to it, at least not good science. You have to, because as you say once your house of cards falls you lose God and the whole shameer. Given that incentive, you can make the case for about anything. Finding evidence of it is another matter.



"well it's like this Baker, if you had a boat, and it was a pretty good boat most of the time, but every once in a while it would sink while you were out on the water, would you load it up and go out to sea in it? Keep in mind, it's pretty good most of the time.

I sure as heck wouldn't. It hasn't been proven trustworthy. You just never know when it explodes and goes down. "


Given that, I guess I can confidently say that the difference between your beliefs, and those of people who believe the Bible isn't inerrant, is this. Your boat is the Bible, and ours is God. Given evidence that the Bible is wrong about something, we'd fault man and continue to embrace God. When you could no longer reject the falshood, you seem to be saying that you'd reject Christ completely.

That's the only way I can really translate: "If Genesis cannot be taken literally, there is no foundation for Christian doctrine. Therefore Christian doctrine has no meaning." I have said a lot of blasphemous things in my life, but that shocks even me. It's either an inerrant Bible or nothing.

Reading that gave me chills, and I am not easily chilled. I have to say it is one of only a handful of statements I have ever read around here that really weighs on me out of concern for the speaker. That isn't even arrogance toward your fellow Christians anymore, that's arrogance toward God, in my opinion.

Please don't take offense, but again what you have said has had a real effect on me. Not the way you'd like to think, either. I'm not moved by your dedication to the Bible, I'm concerned by what I consider, forgive me, your idolatry. The fact that you'd reject what's inside because of what is written on paper on the outside? Frightening.

I think that is just the ultimate bullyish way of telling people they either adopt your view of the Bible, or their beliefs are discounted to nothing. I hope you are just saying things you've heard others say and really don't feel that way. It would be a bleak way to live.
Reply #159 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh Baker, you're getting dramatic on me here. Get a blanket and settle down. God knows my heart. Many many preachers have said what I just did. The first 11 chapters says it all. It's all there. The rest of scripture is just repeat of the first 11 chapters....different names, same stories. Get rid of that, you get rid of the foundation. But yes, Christ is the foundation that the builders rejected. But remember he is the living word. He is the LOGOS. Remember John 1 says, In the beginning was the WORD and he dwelt among men? Funny how John 1 and Gen 1 kinda sound alike?

You don't have the same belief as I do on the scriptures. That's it. We are not seeing eye to eye...that's it. I follow Christ. I know the HS inside of me is verifying that the scriptures are true, just like the writers of the NT said. Just like Christ said. No I'm not worshipping them. I worship Christ. I learn of him and his ways thru scripture. Our communication goes like this......we talk to God thru prayer and he talks to us various ways thru the HS guidance using......

1. The Scriptures
2. Other people he puts in our lives
3. events and circumstances

Maybe you remember what Martin Luther said when asked to recant his writings. He said this:

"Since your Majesty and your Lordships ask for a plain answer I will give you one without either horns or teeth. Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by right reason (for I trust neither in popes nor councils, since they have often erred and contradicted themselves)-unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God, I neither can nor will recant anything since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me. Amen."

Have you ever read Foxe's Book of Martyrs? They all felt the same, and some amazing things happened along the way. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the faith. These martyrs all believed as Luther did. I do also.

think that is just the ultimate bullyish way of telling people they either adopt your view of the Bible, or their beliefs are discounted to nothing


Gee Baker, I don't think of myself as a bully. Do you think that? I do feel strongly, yes but a bully? Remember where I've been. I've been involved in churches where I saw the bible go into the trash can and the priest say......"That's what I think of your book." I've seen a priest tell my mother he loved her. I know of a whole neighborhood that was sexually abused by the clergy in the RCC church outside of Boston. A close protestant clergy friend cheated on his wife and then his wife turned gay.

But I do believe in going to church. Christ died for the church. He wants us to be involved in a local body of believers. The problem is it's hard to find now. You have to truly search this out. We are to be his hands and feet. He wants us together united in Him. All this other petty stuff is nothing but distractions. To keep us off track and busy.

B-eing
U-nder
S-atan's
Y-olk

You said somewhere.....I'm getting lost in the haze..... but that it's convenient to make predictions after the fact right? Well I can give you some that you can write down and wait for things to happen. When I first met my husband 26 years ago, I told him things that I believed would happen from reading scripture. He laughed as you do now. He's not laughing anymore. In fact he's such a strong committed believer he puts me to shame. I envy his discipline. See....... envy's a sin. I'm working on it.

You can read Matthew Henry written in the 1700's. He wrote about Israel somehow coming into their own nation but prophecy had not caught up with history so he was unclear on how that was to be. I will tell you that somehow a temple will be built either on the dome of the rock or next to it. I also believe that the countries named in Ezek 38 will invade Israel but be unsuccessful. One of them is Iran. I believe another is Russia as the King of the North but it could be Syria. I'm not positive on that. We are seeing them lined up now....so who knows.....maybe it's next week. I believe there will be a ,man who will broker peace soon. Some believe he's around now. I have one guy in my sites now.

There's alot of stuff I don't get into here on JU because already I'm considered whacked out, why give them more ammo?
Reply #160 from JoeUser Forums Top
B-eing
U-nder
S-atan's
Y-olk


That sounds unpleasant. I think you meant yoke.

I will tell you that somehow a temple will be built either on the dome of the rock or next to it.


It's already there. They call it the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It's a site of pilgrimage for countless followers of Abraham and has been for over a millennium.
Reply #161 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, fine. I can't get my head around the statement you made, but they are your beliefs and you have every right to have them. When I read your statement about Genesis and Christian doctrine, I can't help but remember what Cardinal Bellarmine also said:

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."


Again, I'd ask if it doesn't feel odd to you to be saying the same sort of thing that people like that said, and in much the same context. He believed that either his interpretation was correct, or there was no point in believing any of it either.



And I'm still waiting to see if you will honestly admit the difference between evolution and religion in terms of evidence. Your article above makes the assertion that there's no difference in terms of evidence. I think I have shown pretty well that there is a huge difference.

In terms of Hovind's bet; first he's a sham, and second his offer is a sham, because it asks:

"Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."


...which I am sure you can tell immediately is a garbage challenge that he can ALWAYS wiggle out of. I defy him or you to prove that the Bible is the only way, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In terms of there being no evidence, we have lots, and we find it where we expect to find it. Young earth creationists have a theory that makes predictions about where we'd find fossils and remains, and yet we never, ever find what they expect to find. So, again, how can you really put these two perspectives on equal footing in terms of faith?

I think you'd see if your son posted that letter here, he'd get a grilling. The theory of evolution does NOT make any predictions about life from non-life. No one predicts aplaying card growing human features. Hovind has had people answer that challenge and he has dodged and stalled on it, refusing to debate. A Google search is all that it takes to find answers about Hovind.

So please, again, can you just be honest about creationism and evolution in terms of science? One makes predictions that pan out for the most part, one makes predictions that have NEVER panned out. That's why one takes 100% faith, and the other takes only the same kind of faith you use when you read a history book and hope they got it right. I hate to see your son, or you, or anyone misled by the likes of Hovind who deserves no one's faith.

There are reasons that people like your preacher and Hovind don't come around people like me. They call us 'wackos', sure, but in the end they also know I can ask them questions that they don't want to face, and that they cannot answer. In order to keep making assertions like the one you make in your article, they have to hide themselves from the truth.

The fact that they continue to claim those facts don't exist when they know they do, in my personal opinion, makes them liars.
Reply #162 from JoeUser Forums Top
That sounds unpleasant. I think you meant yoke.


hahahahah you're right. That DOES sound kind of sticky.

It's already there. They call it the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It's a site of pilgrimage for countless followers of Abraham and has been for over a millennium


no, I belive that somehow the Jewish temple will be rebuilt. Don't know the how of it....heard different musings over the years about the how but can't be sure....just believe it will be built.

So please, again, can you just be honest about creationism and evolution in terms of science. One makes predictions that pan out for the most part, one makes predictions that have NEVER panned out. I hate to see your son, or you, or anyone misled by the likes of Hovid.


First off Baker, Hovind is not my to go to guy, Ham is. I will have to dig out Hovind's tapes and have a relook as it's been ages since I've listened to it. He is pretty popular in Christian circles but I understand that he's saying what they want to hear. I also know there is friction between the camps of Hovind and Ham but I can't remember why.

Second the son that wrote the letter is a journalism major. His brother is the Scientist. My elder son is a 4.0 molectular cell biology graduate going for his Ph.D. He said that evolution theory has some good things to say, but he doesn't believe part/some/most of the claims made from a Christian Scientist position. He absoultuely believes Ham is doing some great research. He would like to work for him someday. He reads Science Journals in his spare time. He is a wicked skeptic not wanting to believe anything outside of what's been published in Scientific Journals. He's given me some links over the year to look at, but honestly Baker, I don't have that much time to dig into them. Maybe I'll send them along to you and you can peruse at your leisure.

I'll get back to you later on the rest.....gotta run.

KFC

P.S. Please don't lump me in with any Cardinal. As an ex -Catholic, I'm not fond of the hierarchy at all.


Reply #163 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Please don't lump me in with any Cardinal. As an ex -Catholic, I'm not fond of the hierarchy at all. "


I'm sorry, but I don't see any way not to.

- He makes a prediction based upon his interpretation of the Bible that is counter to scientific evidence and says that if it is wrong then you might as well toss it all out.

-You make a prediction based upon your interpretation of the Bible that is counter to scientific evidence and say that if it is wrong then you might as well toss it all out

There's really zero difference there.

" He's given me some links over the year to look at, but honestly Baker, I don't have that much time to dig into them. Maybe I'll send them along to you and you can peruse at your leisure. "


So will you be like the rest, and continue to make false claims in the face of evidence to the contrary? Will you continue to ignore the questions you can't answer and pretend they don't exist? You don't have time to dig into the evidence, but you make claims about other people's beliefs based upon it. Much like Hovind doesn't have time to agree to the challenges he, himself has offered.

You've made the claim that it is unfair of me to characterize creationists as dishonest. Will you be honest?
Reply #164 from JoeUser Forums Top
He makes a prediction based upon his interpretation of the Bible that is counter to scientific evidence and says that if it is wrong then you might as well toss it all out.


"based upon his interpretation" is the key. No one's interpretation is infallible. I keep telling you this....mine, this guy or yours. Peter said that as well....remember?

-You make a prediction based upon your interpretation of the Bible that is counter to scientific evidence and say that if it is wrong then you might as well toss it all out


what have I said that is counter to scientific evidence? Here's a couple of quotes for you:

Science can deal only with present processes to which alone it has access. It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal process of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite process of innovation and integration for its production. Therefore, if we really want to know anything about this creation period (other than the fact that there must have been such a period to produce the universe a fact certainly required by the two laws of thermodynamics) then such knowledge can be acquired only by divine revelation. Henry Morris "The Genesis Record"

I I believe scripture is that revelation.

Whenever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible that in one manner or another must give way. We are not told that "science" should correct its answers in the light of scripture. Always it is the other way around. Yet this is really surprising for the answers which scientists have provided have frequently changed with the passing of time. The "authoritative" answers of pre-Copernican scientists are no longer acceptable; nor, for that matter are many of the views of twenty five years ago." Edward J. Young, "Battle for the Beginning" John MacArthur

So will you be like the rest, and continue to make false claims in the face of evidence to the contrary?


No, and I don't see evidence to the contrary of the Genesis account. Go ahead, give it to me. Put it on the line pure and simple and show me where the Genesis account contradicts true science.

You don't have time to dig into the evidence,


no, I said I don't have alot of time right now to peruse scientific journals. I do from time to time but right now, my time is limited. I will admit that Science is not my forte.....I don't spend as much time as it seems you do.

You've made the claim that it is unfair of me to characterize creationists as dishonest. Will you be honest?


First off I'm being honest and I think you know that. Second...let's talk about honest. You keep bringing that up. Creationists are the liars right? Ok how familiar are you with.......Ernst Haeckel and his embryonic drawings? When British embrylogist Micael Richardson and his colleagues published the result of their study comparing the textbook drawings with actual embroys he was quoted as saying in the prestigious journal Science: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."

These drawings known as forgeries for over a hundred years by the scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory were placed in most modern HS and college textbooks. I can give you a list right now of 10 Science textbooks that are filled with errors. This is what Hovind was driven by. To expose this. I'm reading an article called Survival of the Fakest by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D in molecular and cell biology from UC Berkeley. He mentions quite a few fakes over the years.....most of which I think you already know.

Darwin not an embrylogist relied on the work of this German Haeckel. Haeckel doctored the drawings to make them appear more alike than they were. He was criticized in his own lifetime yet Darwin continued basing his theory on these drawings.

How about Darwins tree of life? The fossil record shows the major groups of animals appearing fully formed at about the same time in a "Cambrian explosion" rather than diverging from a common ancestor. This tree theory has been seriously undermined by the fossil record and modern molecular biology. Darwin knew this and considred it a serious threat to his theory. He felt that with more of the fossil record completed this future research would supply the missing ancestors. But gues what? NOT.

Now I know you should know all about the peppered moths. So I won't elaborate. But again, forgery comes to mind. For crying out loud, moths were glued to trees to perpetuate their theory. It was staged. I would say this would equal the Galilao embarrasment.

How about Darwin's finches? Time limits me to go into that but you can look at that deception on your own if not familiar with it. But he withheld evidence to show that evolution occurred. Witholding evidence in order to give the impression that Darwin's finches confirm evolutionary theory borders on scientific misconduct. According to Harvard biologist Louis Guenin "U.S. securities laws provide our richest source of experiental guidance in defining what constitures scientific misconduct. But a stock promoter who tells his clients that a particular stock can be expected to double in value in 20 years because it went up 5% in 1998 while concealing the fact that the same stock declined 5% in 1999 might well be charged with fraud."

Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1999..."When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you kow they are in trouble."

BTW Johnson is one of my go to guys as well. He's got some good books out there. One more.

When biochemist Michael Behe pointed out in the NY Times (I999) that the embryo "evidence" for evolution wa faked, Stephen Jay Gould admitted that he had known this for decades but accused Behe of being a "creationist" for pointing this out.

Behe is not a creationist as the word is normally used. He is a molecular biologist whose scientific work has convinced him that Darwinain theory doesn't conform to observation and experimental evidence. Why did Gould who knew that the Haeckel's drawings were faked dismiss Behe as a creationist for criticizing them?

I could go on and on...but believe me this goes a lot deeper than just science as I said in the beginning. The battle is truly for the beginning and we are on separate sides of this issue. I'll say the same thing that you said to me......please be objective in this matter. Because I truly believe our beginnings do matter.




Reply #165 from JoeUser Forums Top
Again, I'd ask if it doesn't feel odd to you to be saying the same sort of thing that people like that said, and in much the same context. He believed that either his interpretation was correct, or there was no point in believing any of it either.


But Baker, I don't see the connection. I'm not refusing to look at evidence. I'm not refusing to look into telescopes. I think (true) Science is God given. It's the pseudo science I have problems with.

Thomas Huxley gave a lecture in 1893 in which he argued that evolution and ethics are incompatible. What he said was true. The likes of Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Nietzche, Hitler and the like followed this doctrine. Why would you want to follow them as they follow Darwin?

Nothing about the Genesis account suggest that the creation account is symbolic, poetic allegorical or mythical.

If Adam was not the literal ancestor of the human race, then the Bible's explanation of how sin entered the world doesn't make sense. If we didn't "fall" in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ because both are parallels.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made aive." 1 Cor 15:22
"And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." 15:45

That's what I mean..... everything in scripture says about our salvation thru Christ hinges on the literal truth of Genesis.
Besides, where does metaphor end and history begin? After the flood? After the Tower of Babel. Maybe after Abraham? Every NT reference to Genesis are treated as historical events. What evidence out there would show me not to believe this as true?

I believe evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. Along the way, Christians got pulled into the fray as well to make up a theistic evolutionary group.

From Marvin L. Lubenow, "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils."

"The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation Obviously if a person is an atheist it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective and artifical. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior and Judge. All are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable."

It's hard to get out of that bed when you're that comfortable. It's not pleasant to be woken up. That's why scripture keeps warning us don't slumber, don't sleep, keep alert, keep awake......(not literal but spiritual). I intend to stay awake.
Reply #166 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Science can deal only with present processes to which alone it has access."


And that's all you get too.
  • "Were you there to witness creation?" Ham asks, and you have to answer no.
  • Were you there when the Bible account of creation was written? No.
  • Can you even show me evidence of who wrote it beyond a long chain of unverifiable eyewitnesses? No.
  • Can creationist theory be retested or reexamined? No.


When predictions don't pan out, science discards the theory. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence appears that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and do you revise? No. Science makes a claim, and you demand evidence before accepting it. The Bible makes a claim and it is true by default. That's why science is science and religion is religion.

"It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal process of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite process of innovation and integration for its production."


First, it is a straw man dealing with the beginnings of life and the universe, not evolution. Creationists like to confuse bystanders with long, poorly-constructed but scientfic-sounding sentences to distract from questions they can't answer. Second, nothing in the physical laws he clumsily cites would rule out current theories of evolution. Coincidentally, he just makes the statement and offers no argument to back it up.

P.S. I assume you can explain why it is "obvious to anyone not willfully ignorant", since you pose it as an argument. Why is what he is saying true? You aren't willfully ignorant are you?

"Whenever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible that in one manner or another must give way."


No, that's a lie, too. What is asked is for is scientific evidence to the contrary. You simply expect the Bible itself to be seen as evidence, when there's absolutely no reason to believe that anyone who wrote it had scientific knowledge, or even had THE INTENTION of promoting it as a scientific work.

"We are not told that "science" should correct its answers in the light of scripture. "


Why should it? Please tell me why the scriptures should be considered scientific evidence of anything. Please show me where they a) claim to be inerrant, and b) claim to be scientific. Why claim they are when they don't even claim they are?

"Yet this is really surprising for the answers which scientists have provided have frequently changed with the passing of time. The "authoritative" answers of pre-Copernican scientists are no longer acceptable; nor, for that matter are many of the views of twenty five years ago."


That's not insulting science, it's pointing out the flaws with creationism. Science admits its mistakes and moves on. Creationists just make up new excuses to believe, and then demands science refute what creationists didn't have evidence for in the first place. People demand proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist, too. I demand proof that he does.

"Second...let's talk about honest. You keep bringing that up. Creationists are the liars right? Ok how familiar are you with.......Ernst Haeckel and his embryonic drawings?...


  • Ernst Haeckel's embryonic drawings are a straw man argument. Haekel published AFTER Darwin. His ideas of embryology have no effect on modern ideas of evolution, and probably caused a lot of people to be more careful. Nothing I am arguing relies upon them, nor does anything I believe.

  • Darwin wasn't dishonest about the Cambrian explosion, and we have plenty of fossils from before and after. This is just creationists misunderstanding science and then basing arguments on the misunderstandings. The Cambrian explosion is a very, very interesting period in evolution worthy of study, but nothing about it proves creationism or disproves evolution.

  • Peppered Moths. Another 20 year-old argument that creationists just pass on without even understanding the issue. The problems with the study cited haven't defeated the findings about natural selection; they still play out nicely. Actually you've already agreed with microevolution, haven't you? So it's kind of a facetious example.

  • Darwin's Finches. Again, you're griping about micro evolution, and the "problems" you are pointing out aren't an issue in terms of whether or not these species had a common ancestor.

  • Re: Behe and Gould, in reality Gould was openly admitting and condemning Haekel in his own books long before Behe was, so the idea that Gould was somehow covering up or keeping quiet is, again, a lie. If (your new source) Wells had wanted, he could have QUOTED Gould openly condemning Haekel, and instead he says Gould was covering for him. Would you call that honest?


It's sad that the best you can do is point to a handful of scientific aberrations. I willingly, gladly concede that there has been oversight and downright dishonesty in science. Will you acknowledge the spurious "facts" and downright lies that creationists pose in discussions without bothering to understand them or even look them up to see if they've already been found false?

Do you think it is godly to divert, avoid, misrepresent, and outright lie about facts that are easily looked up? Yet oddly in science that is the aberration, and in creationism that tends to be the standard operating procedure. Mr. Ham has to keep a list and beg people to stop embarrassing themselves, and yet they keep right on doing it.
Reply #167 from JoeUser Forums Top
"what have I said that is counter to scientific evidence? ... (and later) ... I'm not refusing to look at evidence."


After all that, after people spend hours and hours discussing it with you, they offer evidence that you ignore, challenge you with questions that you ignore, and in the end you blindly ask the same question you started it all with. I've shown you the dishonesty at work in many creationist arguements. I've shown you how you hypocritically hold evolution to standards you refuse to apply to creationism. It's just an argument of attrition; ignoring them and hoping they will eventually give up.



I'll ask one more time. You insist that the holes in the fossil record are proof that evolution is not a valid theory. ANSWER THIS, if you aren't just dodging the question.

How has the fossil record, that you require for evidence, supported creationism? Where are the non-fossilized dinosaur bones? Where are the multitudes of fossilized humans we should see from the flood, when many/most other fossils were supposedly created? Why don't we have a SCRAP of proof that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side?

So, if evolution falls apart due to lack of "transitional fossil" evidence, but you have ZERO fossil evidence proving a 6,000 year old earth, will you honestly state that creationism has even less scientific basis than evolution? Every scientific demand that you make can be turned right around on creationism. Can you be honest about that?

That's why evolution isn't religion, and why creationism can't be science. I'll grant that science takes faith and belief, but so does a study of history, economics, or anything else. Until you admit that the creationism fails the standard of evidence you require from evolution, you won't be arguing honestly.
Reply #168 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hi, KFC. A good but short summary of some of the evidence of evolution can be found at Link

Another good source is Link

Quoting from the second article:
The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

A nice compendium of resources is at Link

Good luck with those watermelons, by the way.
Reply #169 from JoeUser Forums Top
After all that, after people spend hours and hours discussing it with you, they offer evidence that you ignore, challenge you with questions that you ignore, and in the end you blindly ask the same question you started it all with. I've shown you the dishonesty at work in many creationist arguements.


No more than you have Baker. I don't avoid anything. I asked you to show me where science has disproved scripture. All you have come up with is one Cardinal who made a huge blunder in interpretation. Heck I can find lots of people that still do that today. But I'll ask again....where does True Science disprove Scripture? I have answered you on many diff venues here and you just are unconvinced. I can't help that. I consider you a liberal in theology and myself very conservative and you understand the dynamics of that.

I've shown you how you hypocritically hold evolution to standards you refuse to apply to creationism. It's just an argument of attrition; ignoring them and hoping they will eventually give up.


and I've shown you that science is continually changing and the scriptures are not. I asked you what the word of God is and I don't remember you answering that either.

How has the fossil record, that you require for evidence, supported creationism?


well in a way it does. Well maybe not creation but the lack of human fossils discovered from flood time. I think the lack of human fossils could be evidence. Does that sound odd? So I guess it's based on non evidence. Remember animals were all over the planet but humans at the time of the flood were all concentrated in one area. It was until later they were scattered. Also I think the fact that there were so many dinosaur beds found with those huge heavy bones played a part. But remember they were all bits and pieces made up to what man imagined they looked like. We can't prove evolution or creation by fossil records.

Where are the non-fossilized dinosaur bones?


-Non-fossilized dinosaur bones would disinigrate since it's been over 4000 since they died. I'm surprised you ask this.

-Most fossils are put together by piecing together different bones that are scattered by many square feet

-Very very very rarely (if ever) do you go out and find an intact fossilized dinosaur to begin with

Why don't we have a SCRAP of proof that humans and dinosaurs lived side by side?


Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that. I know Ham will be putting both together in his museum maybe he'll have some ideas on this....but again maybe it'll be scriptual not scientific. . But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. Since I do believe scripture is the revealed word of God, I'd have to say I accept the fact they did live together. To what capacity? I don't know and I'm sure no one else does either. But another thing to remember is that crocs are considered dinosaurs remember and we do live among them still. When I went to Washington State some years ago there were fish in the Columbia River that were considered dinos as well.

Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980's at the infamous Arkasas creationism trial (McLean v Arkanas). During the trial he claimed that creation is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Dawinism is a science, he said, because it requires no philosphicl or religious presuppositioms. Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong and he now acknowledges that evolution is "metaphysically based." grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more scientific than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based.

I just found this .....check this out. Here you'll see Philip Johnson and Ruse together. Have you ever read Philip Johnson out of Berkely? I'd be interested in reading the encounter of the 5 Darwinists and the 5 ID proponents. Notice that it said the spirit between them was very good. I like that.

Link

Naturalism which is born from evolutiom is a religion. The entire philosophy is built on faith based premise. Its basic presupposition, a rejection of everything supernatural, requires a giant leap of faith.

Thanks Larry for the links. I'll check them out.


Reply #170 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But I'll ask again....where does True Science disprove Scripture? "


*boggle* Again, it's a facetious, dishonest argument. Do you think science has an obligation to disprove Athena springing from Zeus's head? If anything that science didn't bother disproving was true by default, what a strange, strange world we'd live in.

When you offer evidence of the scientific truth of the scriptures, then there will be something to address. Until you do, there's no scientific way to disprove scriptures, just as there's no way to disprove Bigfoot. You demand scientific evidence, and then present none.

"and I've shown you that science is continually changing and the scriptures are not. I asked you what the word of God is and I don't remember you answering that either. "


And I have asserted that changing in the face of evidence should be APPLAUDED, and that creationists should be ashamed when they just make up new excuses every time they are presented with such.

"Well maybe not creation but the lack of human fossils discovered from flood time. I think the lack of human fossils could be evidence. Does that sound odd? So I guess it's based on non evidence. "


So, your assertion is that lack of fossil evidence is proof that human existed alongside many creatures that left behind fossils? Can you POSSIBLY imagine if a scientist tried to pull that off when debating creationists? Come on.

No, lack of evidence of something isn't really evidence. Again, if that were true, every religion on earth would be scientific fact, not just Christianity.

"Non-fossilized dinosaur bones would disinigrate since it's been over 4000 since they died. I'm surprised you ask this. "


You see, that has to be a purposeful lie, KFC, because you, yourself, know the opposite is true. I have held *North American* artifacts, textiles, and bones IN MY HANDS that were over 4,000 years old. You've seen plenty on TV, I'm sure. Are you really trying to claim that we don't have anything but fossils from more than 4,000 years ago?

No organic remains from Europe, Egypt, Asia, anywhere? Please. Come on. At least try. We have lots of bones from 4,000 years ago, and frankly we have a lot that are older than 6,000 years. Mr. Ham wouldn't even use that argument.

"-Most fossils are put together by piecing together different bones that are scattered by many square feet

-Very very very rarely (if ever) do you go out and find an intact fossilized dinosaur to begin with"


Diversionary. That has NOTHING to do with your lack of non-fossilized dinosaur bones. You see how you crab walk away from the truth when someone presents it to you? At least we find scraps of dinosaur fossils, and many intact ones. I'm still waiting for just a scrap from your end of the argument.

"Well we have nothing scientific I'll give you that."


Then anything you post after you understand that which implies that creationism is just as scientifically valid as evolution is a lie.

"But I do know biblically speaking Job wrote about them. He witnesses them and put it down in writing. "


Again, you're twisting the Bible to fit your beliefs. Job didn't say anything about dinosaurs. He talked about large creatures, which we now have many, and which prehistoric man had a lot more. That he's talking about dinosaurs, though, is a total assumption on your part, and more of your tactic of putting your beliefs in God's mouth.

"Michael Ruse is an evolutionist who testified in the 1980's at the infamous Arkasas creationism trial"


Another lie. Michael Ruse is a professor of philosphy, not a scientist. He did not testify as to the scientific validity of evolution, nor could he. Were he here I have a feeling he'd be agreeing with me, not you. Here's his opinion in 2005:

" You argue that the Darwin vs. Creation argument is often a battle of two religions. Can you explain that?

Well, of course, this is what my new book is about. I am not saying that Darwinian theory is always religious – it is not. I am saying that often evolutionists use their science to do more than science and to give a world picture – origins, special place for humans at the top, moral directives – that we associate with religion. Creationism I argue flatly is a religion – the religion of biblical literalist, American protestant evangelicals of a right wing persuasion. Creationists deny that their position is purely religious, but I think that they do this to avoid the separation of church and state embedded in the US constitution. I suspect that many Darwinians will take issue with my claim that any part of their theorizing is religious – but I have made my case and rest it.

What is your personal view on the origin of life and its evolution?

Well, we have not solved it yet, but we have made major progress – both in working out when it came and what directions it took – following the path up to the Cambrian. Also molecular biology is working hard to see how life might have started in the first place. The latest hypothesis is that RNA might have been the first key molecule. People say that the problem is too complex to solve. I say, the problem is complex but for the first time we have the tools to give the solution are real try and we should be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

Note that I do not talk about the origin of life much in this book (or human evolution) – mainly because these are not issues absolutely central to my main theme about the evolution-creation dispute being essentially a debate between two world views or religions. "


Sorry, that sounds like my blogs, not yours. I myself assert that using science to oppose religion is wrong and unscientific over and over. That isn't what is at issue here. You are asserting that evolutionary theory itself is religion, and your cited philosopher doesn't believe that, either. He believes that many scientists draw philosphical conclusions from the science.

The link you post says NOTHING that is counter to my argument, or what Ruse has said in the past. His 'change of heart" isn't about evolutionary theory, it is about how SOME scientists apply that theory metaphysically. He's just as much the proponent of evolution that he always was.

"Naturalism which is born from evolutiom is a religion. The entire philosophy is built on faith based premise. Its basic presupposition, a rejection of everything supernatural, requires a giant leap of faith. "


Again, you sink back to the same, tired argument. Learn what naturalism means before you pose it as a religion. It isn't. It's a philosophy. Your confusion between religion and philosophy, and philosophy and science is part of your problem. One can be a scientist and hold philosophical and religious beliefs, without tainting their science.



I'm still curious about the quote you posted:

" It should be completely clear to all who are not willfully ignorant that universal process of conservation and disintegration could never produce a universe requiring almost infinite process of innovation and integration for its production. "


Would you please explain to me what this means? I have to assume you can, since you cite it as evidence of your points regarding evolution. If it should be clear to all who aren't 'willfully ignorant', and you most certianly aren't 'willfully ignorant', it should be clear to you, right? Either that or the guy is a liar, too.
Reply #171 from JoeUser Forums Top
You understand that 4,000 years ago isn't prehistory, right? The Great Pyramid is older than that. To say that we have no organic remains from that era has to be purposefully dishonest.
Reply #172 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have held *North American* artifacts, textiles, and bones IN MY HANDS that were over 4,000 years old.

I have to agree with this one as so have I.
Reply #173 from JoeUser Forums Top
Many mummies are 4,000 years or older.
Reply #174 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do those mummies have dates on them? Like "Made in 2,000 B.C.?" I don't think so. It's all a matter of interpreting the evidence, and no interpretation is more authoritative than the next as they're all made by fallible humans. Creationists weren't the only ones who believed the sun revolved around the Earth before Galileo.
Reply #175 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Many mummies are 4,000 years or older."



And KFC knows that, MasonM. She's just grasping at straws now. I know how she feels, I did the same thing about when I was about 17 years old, and finally I just had to admit that what I had been taught about creationist 'science' was all a lie.

Even in the creationist timeline, there would be 4,000 year old bones still around. There's no argument from creationists that Mammoth bones are that old, and that we find them in a non-fossilized state, but they don't really explain why we don't find any dinosaur bones that way.

Hovind has all these theories about how mammoths were flash-frozen from a falling ice comet or something, but for some reason the dinosaurs missed out getting turned into an instant slurpee. Odd, that. Odd also that we don't find human fossils in the same strata with dinosaur fossils, given they lived alongside one another.

Science predicts where we'll find this stuff, and what we'll find, and heck if they aren't right more often than not. It theorizes that you won't find fossilized people in the same geological strata as trilobytes and tyrannasaurs, and you don't. Creationism believes they coexisted, and yet their remains don't; a fact they refuse to explain.