Religion of Evolution

GOD is SUPERNATUAL. GOD is above nature. Without GOD there would be no Nature. The very act of Creation is in itself an ANTI-Natural process, since BEFORE creation there existed only GOD and Nothing else...

 

Dear "A Christian" -- don't let Galatian/Barbarian get to you. He has been twisting meaning and logic and Bible for at least the six or seven years I have seen him and talked with him on the net. He's not going to change. Don't let him get to you. Talk with people who don't make you feel like you just hit the Mad Hatter's Teaparty instead.

In the meantime, you are quite right about creation not being by natural means. Nature did not create nature!

 

UTE, if it makes you feel better to believe man's interpretation of the data and that you came from some proto-ape ancestor, fine. But don't try to reconcile that with the Bible or with the fact that the data itself indicates macro evolution is impossible genetically, that the entire universe may well be quite young, or that a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible gives the truth of the matter.

 

True.

Has to be. He created it. It is the means by which He does most things in this world.

True.

You are a creature of God, are you not? And yet He used natural processes to create you. He created living things by natural processes, as He tells you in Genesis.

The earth brought forth living things, as He intended.

That's how it happened. Nature is just His tool in the process.

 

God made the 1st man from the dust of the ground and then later He made woman from the rib of this 1st man.

That doesn't sound like anything which can be observed today.

 

Same answer as above.

We can observe the shared genetics of all life. Since you speak of man specifically, we can look at see how closely our genes are shared with the other apes. We can see where the same genes are used in us and the other apes. We can see where we both carry the same mutations. We can see where we both carry the same genes which have lost their functionality. We can see where we both carry the same retroviral insertions from our common ancestors becoming infected with a virus.

We can observe that we and the other apes share some basic behavior.

We can observe the similar physical traits we have with the other apes. We can observe traits we have that no longer have any function, or not their original function, that can only be explained through common descent.

We can observe a long line of intermediates where the apes evolve from the primates and then the humans from the apes.

We can observe all this. In that light, since we all agree that the Bible must be true, it becomes obvious that what you are discussing was not meant to be a literal account. For God would not lie to us. Therefore there must be a different intended meaning than what you are asserting.

 

Genesis says that God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. And Adam ate, but did not die until many years later.

From this, we know that Genesis is not literal, but allegory. The only alternative is to believe that God doesn't always tell the truth.

Not much of a decision, is it?

 

It always surprises me, that although we can see God's creation directly, there are some who would instead of God's testimony, accept man's judgement of what scripture says.

 

Or it may be that it happened just as the Bible says it happened. That God created things as the Bible says He did.

 

Death did enter the world on the very same day Adam sinned.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. )
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Ah... so we see that death indeed entered the world (and Adam) in the same day as he sinned. Because we see that Adam literaly and physically died (whereas there was no death in the world before that point) we can conclude that Genesis is as literal as death is in the world.

Perhaps you have heard the phrase 'the only sure thing in this world is death'. It would seem pretty strong evidence to refute your silly notion that Genesis is not literal.

Moreover, even if we forsook the whole of scripture and pretended like Genesis was not literal, it would still not change the fact that NOTHING in scripture - literal or non-literal - supports evolution or millions of years. Even if compltely allegorical, Genesis still supports a young earth and refutes evolution and millions of years entirely.

Even an allegory has to represent something real, so your argument REALLY has no merit - it has no scriptural merit (it is not based in any scripture) and it has no logical merit (the possibility of evolution is still zero even if it were allegorical).

God, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and just about everyone else quote Genesis as literal. Not one verse of scripture paints creation, the flood, or any other part of Genesis as a fairy tale or a non-literal story.

We have asked repeatedly for you to show us scripture that advocates that we should not believe Genesis as literal (one verse where someone stated it didn't actually happen the way it says it happened) and you and your camp of humanists have given NONE.

Therefore, in the abscence of any Biblical evidence, coupled with the a priori committment to materialism and naturalism in evolution science it is obvious that evolution is more religous belief than scientific fact.

 

It always surprises me that one who claims faith in God can't have enough faith to believe that ALL of what God says is true. We have an eyewitness account from the one being who was there and who performed it, yet you are unwilling to believe that testamony in leui of contradictory materialistic, humanistic interpretations of physical evidence.

 

Well, we've started a thread on that subject about people who talk like that and yet believe the world rotates contrary to the literal teaching of the Bible that the sun moves across the sky . . . are you one of those?

 

Yes.

He is also one of those who likes to make assertions like all the evidence really points to a young earth if interpreted correctly and "the possibility of evolution is still zero " without ever showing why the current interpretations are wrong and giving us the interpreations that better fit the data or supporting why it could not happen. The few arguments attempted have been woefully short on facts.

Not a slam at Gup in particular. Most YEers have trouble with the facts. Helen is by far the best around here and I am still extremely unimpressed with the evidence presented for a young earth. See the "junk" science thread to see the bed of sand most of their arguments rest upon.

YMMV.

 

It always surprises me that one who claims faith in God can't have enough faith to believe that ALL of what God says is true. We have an eyewitness account from the one being who was there and who performed it, yet you are unwilling to believe that testamony in leui of contradictory materialistic, humanistic interpretations of physical evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]Very true.

It is odd how appeals to junk science and "Seem" a better way to go. EVEN when the great red flag is there for all to see - which is "evolutionism is the ONLY choice for atheists".

How can an objective mind "just miss that"??

IN Christ,

Bob

 

So very true.

But even more surprising is the fact that ON these threads the Christian evolutionists (at least some of them) will admit that the text of scripture IS proclaiming creationism - the Creator, telling the Creation story.

(But of course they claim He had to do that since the people of Bible cultures were not up to par with the modern atheist evolutionists of today).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Very true. But think of it from the atheist's point of view. What other choice does an atheist or agnostic have? They "need" to find a "non-God" answer for "origins".

They "need" the stories of evolutionism IN SPITE of the junk science gaffs and blunders made in those stories. (As pointed out in the Junk Science thread for evolutionism).

Of course - "why" a Christian would want to marry the gospel to those myths of atheist evolutionism -- now "that's" another story.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong. That is the assertion of all atheist evolutionists "I know" but they have never been able to prove it -- so instead of "proving their point" they merely "assume it" -- as you do in the quote above.

Nothing new there.

Well now we are getting some place.

His word is TRUE, trustworthy, AND reliable. So when HE gives "the ACCOUNT" of the creation in Gen 1-2:4 "We can trust the details".

When The NT Gospel writers APPEAL to those VERY DETAILS - we can SEE that BOTH NT and OT "trust the DETAILS".

When we see how atheist evolutionists flee from those very details and cling to "the only story they HAVE" -- we know that evolutionism REALLY does "serve their interests" as Darwin pointed out - as Dawkings pointed out AS all Bible believing Creation-trusting Christians here point out.

Wrong! (In fact "dead wrong").

Here again you simply "assume your salient point" rather than "establishing it" under the guise of "an error repeated becomes fact".

Simply won't hold water here among Bible believing Creator-trusting and Creation-account-believing Christians.

But your assertion is easily "tested".

Notice that IF Atheist evolutionists SAW that the Bible was "teaching evolutionism" (and hence in total harmony with it) they would be the first to smack us over the head with that embarrassing fact. But "how odd" that atheist evolutionists SEE the contraction between the junk science claims of evolutionism AND the clear explicit statements in God's "Account".

EVEN Christians HERE have admitted "God tells a creationist story and DOES NOT tell the story of evolutionism" because the people of Bible times were so much more in the dark than the wonderful atheist evolutionists we have today.

And your "trying to keep everybody from knowing the whole truth" idea sounds kind of paranoid. What "is the value" in such faile accusation? What "story" goes with it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

But I do have a choice. I am not an atheist. I even started out with your point of view. But the evidence convinced me that it must be otherwise. In fact, it was the horrible science that passes for "creation science" that led me to look at anything else to begin with. I was already YE and looking at YE material and I still was shocked at how horrible it was.

The only thing that has been shown so far on that thread is the lengths the YEers will go to twist and distort the actual science in a pitiful attempt to prop up their house of cards. The house falls flat when the actual science is examined. Or have you forgotten about all the out of context quotes whose meaning completely changes if you consider the few sentences to either side of what is quoted. Have you forgotten about all the purposeful mistakes and misrepresentations of data I have pointed out in the name of "creation science?" (Maybe this will remind you. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/15.html#000224 ) Have you forgotten about all the experts you have tried to cite who actually disagree with your position? Have you forgotten about all the times you have been asked to support your assertions and have failed to do so.

No, the "junk" is squarely on the side of the YE crowd. The facts on on the side of the OE crowd. And you have helped demonstrate that better than any other method available.

[ August 18, 2004, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Bob said Very true. But think of it from the atheist's point of view. What other choice does an atheist or agnostic have? They "need" to find a "non-God" answer for "origins".

Hello! This is the very point I am making.

The atheist evolutionist is STUCK with evolutionism when confronted by "inconvenient facts"! He must STICK with his evolutionist "story" no matter HOW inconvenient the facts. So when they themselves SHOW us some of the blunders gaffs and flaws in THEIR OWN story it does NOT surprise is to see them STICK with their story "anyway".

This is why I keeps saying that I find your repeated "YES but they are STILL atheist" and "YES but they are STILL evolutionist" respsonses so mind numbing!

Obviously! Evolutionism is the ONLY origins "story" acceptable to Atheists no matter HOW flawed!! What could be more clear??!!

Your point that "you have no such excuse" when encountering those same "inconvenient facts" is also -- MY POINT!

You can't hide behind your atheist evolutionist bretheren taking THEIR same out when confronted by those inconvenient facts! They HAVE their excuse - what is yours??!!

You certainly can't use theirs!

Of course you do even "Worse" than what the atheists attempt. You try to "marry" evolutionism to the Word of God. Something BOTH Bible believing Christians AND Atheist evolutionists find astonishingly self-conflicted.

EVEN your own evolutionist bretheren here have confessed that God is NOT telling the story of "evolutionism" in Gen 1-2:3.

Again - the conflicted nature of your position COULD NOT BE more obvious!

Bob said
They "need" the stories of evolutionism IN SPITE of the junk science gaffs and blunders made in those stories. (As pointed out in the Junk Science thread for evolutionism).

Failed revisionism on your part shown here again.

In fact we find that the MORE the article is quoted the MORE compromised and conflicted the evolutionists argument is !!

You then fall back to your "YES but they STILL cling to evolutionism" retort in EVERY case!

This could not be more glaring! How do you expect us to miss it?

In case you have "forgoten" let me "show you again" using your own words...

Have you forgotten about all the times (as in the above case) that you resort to this same mind numbing "Evolutionists are STILL evolutionists so the inconvenient facts must be solvable!" response??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually, BobRyan, scientists don't see any "inconvenient fact" in opposition to evolution at all. They simply see some unanswered questions, along with the answered questions, of course. For example, horses even today have shin splints on their legs, proof they evolved from earlier, three toed species.