Evolution Debate

[bob b]

Because God created everything.

Do you think that God created evil?

How can you prove that God is speaking to us through an ancient text, and that the writers were not simply inspired by Him?

Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.

How is this even possible? You think man purposely created the fossils that date back to 10,000 years ago?

Fossils can not be "dated" unless they contain unmineralized organic material. Whenever unmineralized organic material (like wood) is found in a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old and dated by C-14 it invariably dates to around 33,000 years ago. This is well within the accuracy of the Genesis account considering the probable changes in cosmic radiation and other environmental factors not normally considered when the testing lab produces a "date".

Fossils are found entombed in sedimentary layers. "Sedimentary" means water-laid so that these layers are basically dried mud. This is why the layers cannot be dated either.

If God created man 4000 years ago how the heck is it man's doing that these fossils are here?

The date is 4 or 5 thousand years BC, which translates to 6 or 7 thousand years ago.

not Darwin's just one guy. Besides there was another guy who theorized natural selection around the time of Darwin and never even met Darwin. His name escapes me, I will have to look it up.

No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistence). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

 

[tjguitar]

Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.

This proves nothing.

I am a very avid reader. I love sci-fi/fantasy series. The longer the series the better. One of the things I absolutely abhor is when a series is not consistant within itself. If it says one thing in the first book, then something that does not go along with that in the eighth, I put that book down. Although I have put down a lot of books/series over the years, I have also found quite a few that are internally consistant. For example, I am currently reading Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. I just finished the eleventh book, and all has been consistant. I found a few places where I thought it was not until I thought about it and realized that it was not the book being inconsistant, but the characters in the book being inconsistant, as part of their personalities, and part of their flaws. If you read further, you will see that this trips them up later on. This series now is close to, I would say, something like 15,000 pages.

Now, what this has to do with this thread....

If someone can write a series that is 15,000 pages, and growing, and be perfectly consistant, then someone can completely make up the Bible and have it be consistant. This is not to say the Bible is wrong, of course. I am just saying that saying Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies does not really mean anything.

 

[bob b]

This proves nothing.

I am a very avid reader. I love sci-fi/fantasy series. The longer the series the better. One of the things I absolutely abhor is when a series is not consistant within itself. If it says one thing in the first book, then something that does not go along with that in the eighth, I put that book down. Although I have put down a lot of books/series over the years, I have also found quite a few that are internally consistant. For example, I am currently reading Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. I just finished the eleventh book, and all has been consistant. I found a few places where I thought it was not until I thought about it and realized that it was not the book being inconsistant, but the characters in the book being inconsistant, as part of their personalities, and part of their flaws. If you read further, you will see that this trips them up later on. This series now is close to, I would say, something like 15,000 pages.

Now, what this has to do with this thread....

If someone can write a series that is 15,000 pages, and growing, and be perfectly consistant, then someone can completely make up the Bible and have it be consistant. This is not to say the Bible is wrong, of course. I am just saying that saying Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies does not really mean anything.

You are absolutely correct.

The consistency with one another of the different books of the Bible proves that they had one ultimate author, the One who inpired them.

On the other hand there is no historian on the face of the Earth who believes that the author of the Bible was a single human being. They hold this belief this because of the historical evidence.

 

[tjguitar]

The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

First, it seems like you have this idea in your mind that evolution is heading towards some purpose and that organisms should be getting more and more complex as time goes on. That is not true however. Evolution works like this. We all have DNA which pretty much determines everything about us. Sometimes this DNA gets randomly mutated. The organism isn't like, 'hmm, I could really use some wings' but wings have to happen by chance through genetic mutation. Sometimes genetic mutation is good, sometimes it is bad and sometimes it is neutral. A bad mutation might end up killing the animal before it reproduces. A good mutation might make the animal reproduce more. And because genes are passed on the good genes have a greater chance at getting passed on. Sometimes a creature will have a great mutation that would make it a super organism but before it can reproduce it is randomly eaten by a shark.

Evolution is completely random, there is no purpose to it.

A fish does not suddenly get up one day and start walking on land. It takes an incredibly long time. We have historical records dating back around 10000 years max. but 10000 years in the grand scheme of the earth is like 0.00025% of the earth's history.

You do realize that evolution is not "bacteria turning into humans", right? If a bacteria transformed into a human, that would disprove evolution.

 

[tjguitar]

You are absolutely correct.

The consistency with one another of the different books of the Bible proves that they had one ultimate author, the One who inpired them.

On the other hand there is no historian on the face of the Earth who believes that the author of the Bible was a single human being. They hold this belief this because of the historical evidence.

But you can't PROVE that a supernatural being inspired them.

You hold a religious belief that says so and finding a contradiction in the Bilble is like finding historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare.

 

[bob b]

First, it seems like you have this idea in your mind that evolution is heading towards some purpose and that organisms should be getting more and more complex as time goes on. That is not true however. Evolution works like this. We all have DNA which pretty much determines everything about us. Sometimes this DNA gets randomly mutated. The organism isn't like, 'hmm, I could really use some wings' but wings have to happen by chance through genetic mutation. Sometimes genetic mutation is good, sometimes it is bad and sometimes it is neutral. A bad mutation might end up killing the animal before it reproduces. A good mutation might make the animal reproduce more. And because genes are passed on the good genes have a greater chance at getting passed on. Sometimes a creature will have a great mutation that would make it a super organism but before it can reproduce it is randomly eaten by a shark.

Evolution is completely random, there is no purpose to it.

A fish does not suddenly get up one day and start walking on land. It takes an incredibly long time. We have historical records dating back around 10000 years max. but 10000 years in the grand scheme of the earth is like 0.00025% of the earth's history.

You do realize that evolution is not "bacteria turning into humans", right? If a bacteria transformed into a human, that would disprove evolution.

Do you believe that the fossil record shows a progression from simple to complex?

If that is not progress what is?

Evolutionsts pass along this lie without realizing how easily it can be demonstrated that it is a lie. They deceive themselves and pass on the "favor" by deceiving others.

They believe because they have faith that it is true, whatever their unknown mental motivation.

 

[bob b]

But you can't PROVE that a supernatural being inspired them.

You hold a religious belief that says so and finding a contradiction in the Bilble is like finding historical inaccuracies in Shakespeare.

We prove it by the same scientific methodology which permits a judge and/or jury to determine that a literary work has been plagerized.

It is not credible to believe that close to a hundred books, written by different authors over a period of thousands of years happen to be perfectly consistent with one another by accident. It would have taken an enormous "conspiracy" to have fooled all historians of such things, particularly since many books of the Bible could be reconstructed if they suddenly disappeared because of the many quotations contained in different writings of other authors living in comparable time periods.

 

[bob b]

tjguitar,

You show obvious signs of being a troll, which on the internet is short for a person who poses as one who believes in one thing but actually believes in another. people do this for various reasons I suppose. Some I have caught do this to Christians to see how we would try to bring awavering Christian back into the fold of believers.

In your case you may have betrayed your real motivation when you insisted that evolution is random and has no purpose, yet God must have been using evolution as His method of creation.

There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

For this and other reasons I am beginning to doubt that you are a Christian at all.

 

[tjguitar]

We prove it by the same scientific methodology which permits a judge and/or jury to determine that a literary work has been plagerized.

It is not credible to believe that close to a hundred books, written by different authors over a period of thousands of years happen to be perfectly consistent with one another by accident. It would have taken an enormous "conspiracy" to have fooled all historians of such things, particularly since many books of the Bible could be reconstructed if they suddenly disappeared because of the many quotations contained in different writings of other authors living in comparable time periods.

There is just as much evidence to support that it is a conspiracy, you choose to put more weight on the evidence that supports your beliefs.

 

[tjguitar]

There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

Ever heard of theistic evolution?

All it means is God is the one that caused the big bang....the first particle had to come from somewhere.

Do you really think that "true" faith entails believing the Bible verbatim and thus knowing God is lying to us through the natural world?

There seems to be contradiction here, because if humans are not the result of God's purpose then how much of scripture besides Genesis must we also discard?

You can't possibly know God's purpose. You can only know your understanding thereof.

Everything is relative.

 

[bob b]

Ever heard of theistic evolution?

All it means is God is the one that caused the big bang....the first particle had to come from somewhere.

Do you really think that "true" faith entails believing the Bible verbatim and thus knowing God is lying to us through the natural world?




You can't possibly know God's purpose. You can only know your understanding thereof.

Everything is relative.

You are flying under a false flag. You are not a Christian. A Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, was crucified died and was buried and on the 3rd day rose from the dead.

Benjamin Frankin was not a Christian; he was a theist: someone who believes in God, but not the God of the Bible.

You apparently are a theist (or a troll). Trolls' purpose seems to be to disrupt things.

BTW, we can determine at least some parts of God's purpose through reading the Bible.

 

[tjguitar]

And how do you decide whose interpetation of the Bible is a correct one? Just because you share the view of the early church fathers doesn't mean you are correct.

Being a Christian does not give you the right to tell other Christians what to do AND believe that YOU and YOU alone are right, just because you're a Christian/You're an older Christian/You are more "spiritual"/You read the Bible more.

Uh, and someone very well can believe in Christ was crucifed, died and was buried and still take the creatoin account figuratively.

The Bible is a collection of laws, histories, poetry, teachings, prophesying, letters, and apocalyptic literature written over thousands of years and compiled hundreds later. To make any general statement about it is difficult.

Like all poetry, you wouldn't take the poetic books in the Bible (e.g. Psalms, Job) literally. You can still derive some spiritual insight from them generally, but the particulars are not necessarily being presented as facts. Similarily, apocalyptic literature (e.g., much of Daniel, Revelation) can very deliberately use symbols to refer to contemporary events. Even if you don't accept this interpretation of apocalyptic literature, the alternative is that apocalyptic literature uses symbols to show what has yet to be seen. Again, spiritual wisdom may be generally drawn from these books, but to accept the particulars as facts is absurd at best.

Jesus often speaks in parables and even riddles throughout the Gospels. His teachings are authentic, but the parables cannot be taken at face value. Writers often use metaphors, symbols, and similar literary devices to elaborate on points. It would not be right to take these passages literally.

For more ambiguous things, such as the creation account, I recommend considering whether it's consisent with what you know about reality. While the world may not have been created in six days and even the most devout Christian still gets burned when he touches a stove burner and can't so much as make a mountain shift a little, I don't think anything is detracted from the spiritual message.

Finally, if you were speaking God's word, you would never be so fast to bring down condemnation upon another person. You'd be challenging them to change their ways, you already quit, but you have the time to tell them they're going to hell. I pity you, because you are off track.

 

[Johnny]

What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here. Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.

 

[noguru]

What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here. Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.

Yes why is it that as long as people like Love and lynn73 are toeing the party line of YECism then Bob and others like him don't find a need to point out their inaccuracies? :think:

 

[Yorzhik]

What I always find interesting is that creationists who know better or should know better (OEJ, Bob, Yorzhik) don't come in and speak out against people like 'Love and lynn73 for making their camp look like complete buffoons. If there were an evolutionist here who was that scientifically inept I wouldn't think twice about shutting him up. Its all part of the free pass mentality here I guess.

And while we're on debate tactics of "evolution" debates, perhaps everyone would be interesting in seeing the debate tactics of one of the more popular creationists here. Re-defining words, false-accusations, false-dilemmas, non-sequitors, baseless accusations, unsupportable claims, bad science, and one loud mouth..its all there.

I don't think you'll find that is true. Recently when Bob Hill, who is loved be me and many others here, no one was unclear about disagreeing that they didn't think the SLoT started at the fall.

But I don't give that kind of courtesy to every poster, whether they are creationist or evolutionist. Most of the time I, and I would guess this is true of other posters, are responding to a specific person and side-tracking to correct someone else, whether they are trying to help or not, just takes too much time. If you ask about a specific view, I don't think I would hesitate to state a view contrary to to other creationists.

BTW, after ThePhy helped noguru on his view of the SLoT (whether it was my requests that he do so or out of the goodness of his heart) I can't say I have used this accusation lately because of it.

 

[noguru]

Do you think that God created evil?

Yes.

2 Kings 22:16

"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:"

Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Because Jesus Christ validated what they said.

Yes, he did. Are you saying that he did not validate parts of scripture that contained figures of speach, metaphors, and literary devices?

Ezekiel 20:49
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?

Matthew 13:3
And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;


Matthew 13:10
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?


Matthew 13:13
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.


Matthew 13:34
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


Matthew 13:35
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


Matthew 13:53
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.


Matthew 21:45
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.


Matthew 22:1
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,


Mark 3:23
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?


Mark 4:2
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,


Mark 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:


Mark 4:13
And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?


Mark 4:33
And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.


Mark 12:1
And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.


Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistence). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't. The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

Again you show you show your ignorance with science. Science is not about "proofs". That is mathematics. Those who do science, compile and analyse evidence. Then they create models (hypothesis, theories) to explain the evidence. Please explain how the fossil record is evidence against the naturalistic old earth single form common descent model and evidence for your supernatural young earth multiple forms model.

 

[noguru]

I don't think you'll find that is true. Recently when Bob Hill, who is loved be me and many others here, no one was unclear about disagreeing that they didn't think the SLoT started at the fall.

But I don't give that kind of courtesy to every poster, whether they are creationist or evolutionist. Most of the time I, and I would guess this is true of other posters, are responding to a specific person and side-tracking to correct someone else, whether they are trying to help or not, just takes too much time. If you ask about a specific view, I don't think I would hesitate to state a view contrary to to other creationists.

BTW, after ThePhy helped noguru on his view of the SLoT (whether it was my requests that he do so or out of the goodness of his heart) I can't say I have used this accusation lately because of it.

He did it because I was innacurate in my understanding. And instead of having me be an embarassment to myself and others who accept the naturalistic model of science, he corrected my misunderstanding. He even admitted why he did it in that same post.

And it wasn't my view of SLoT that was confused. It was the interaction of other forces in nature and SLoT. I said that The First Law, Relativity, gravity... can reverse SLoT. That was an innacurate representation of what really happens. The truth is that your claim that SLoT is the ultimate force of nature and wins out over all other forces was also inaccurate. But you were unwilling to accept that.

 

[bob b]

noguru,

On the misunderstanding regarding "God creating evil"
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun:—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

Raah is often translated “evil” in a poetic sense, just as we would consider the destructive power of a hurricane to be a “calamity” and hence “evil” in that poetic way. A hangman creates “evil” or a “calamity” for the one who is hanged, but if done to bring justice is not “evil” in the sense of the hangman being evil. In the same way God is not evil for bringing justice to evildoers. Try substituting “calamity” (a synonym) for “evil” in your cited passages to get the correct sense of what is being said.

For example The Contemporary version of the Bible translates Isa 45:7:

I form light and create darkness,
I make harmonies and create discords.
I, God, do all these things.

And 2 Kings 22:16 is rendered:

Tell the man who sent you here that I’m on my way to bring the doom of judgment on this place and this people. Every word written in the book read by the king of Judah will happen. And why? Because they’ve deserted me and taken up with other gods, made me thoroughly angry by setting up their god-making businesses. My anger is raging white-hot against this place and nobody is going to put it out.

-----

You have sinned against God by carelessly accusing Him of creating evil, probably by following the lead of someone who is not a strong believer.

 

[CAUSASIAN]

Evolution is a lie.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

 

[tjguitar]

Evolution is a lie.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

yippee we can post links to biased sources cause we have no idea what we are talking about.