Playd76 has also been invited to read this reply and then comment or debate via the comments section for this particular post to defend his/her argument. As I usually do this often I will attempt to paste various dialogues between myself and other commentators on YouTube so that you can see what the common arguments are as well as mistakes and misconceptions are between various belief groups.
_______
I started out the comment stating that there was no "empirical" evidence for Macro Evolution, that which teaches as fact that dogs produced non dogs and cats produced non cats etc...
by it's very definition
Em-pir-i-cal:
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
So by it's very definition, evolutionist do the same exact thing that Christians do. Has any evolutionist directly observed evolution occurring? Were they there at the beginning? When they find a dinosaur bone in the ground, how does this bone tell them that the animal even had offspring, nevertheless different or mutated ones?
What's amazing is that Playd76 and I are both using the same exact evidence available for everyone. The only difference is our presuppositions. I hope as I have been opened minded over the years (9) when studying this topic, so Playd76 will also set aside his/her presuppositions and consider the Christian message which is both resonable and rational. I'll respond point by point until comments are entered in the comment section and will then return dialogue from that section on. Anyone is welcome to add input as well.
Playd76's comment-
1 - No 'empirical' evidence? lol, you're going to need some paper pants if its true about ignorance being bliss. We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand? Are you now going to really show us your level of ignorance by telling us 'it's just a theory'? lol To call 'evolution' a religion is a joke. Firstly, this suggests you have problems with religion when you clearly 2 - don't being as you accept bronze age beliefs that would normally result in somebody being certified mentally ill under any other circumstances, (as Sam Harris say's "it seems like there's sanity in numbers" whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too. Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion. 3 - Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began. Evolution also doesn't deal with the 'supernatural' in any way, shape or form. Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution) unlike evolution that takes the facts then comes to an IMPARTIAL conclusion using 3 - ONLY the evidence available. Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism. Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals. Again, we have this wonderful thing called evidence, you people should try it."your faith is much much greater than any Christian"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?
My point by point reply;
"No 'empirical' evidence?........We have evidence from every branch of science supporting it, it's been biologically proven as i mentioned previously, what part of that didn't you understand?"
Well, could you be more specific about the "evidence" you speak of? What exactly was the evidence that put it over the top for you? What is the absolute evidence you saw that convinced you macro evolution is true and that all of the life we see today came from one single organism. Where did the "information" come from to change one animal into another animal? And it's funny you say it's been "biologically proven" Speaking of biology, could you demonstrate how the flagellum cell which has been demonstrated that it could not have evolved because all of it's components are required to be fully present or it doesn't work? So if this organism cannot be broken down any more without it falling apart how could it have evolved gradually since all of it's parts have to be present for it to work? I think you underestimate this little machine. This irreducibly complex motor can do some extraordinary things. You want me and others to believe that this could have come about by random chance and mutation without anything guiding it whatsoever? Natural selection doesn't work here alone because as mentioned before this did not gradually evolve. Darwin himself said "If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
My friend, biology is certainly not on your side - http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/7/7b/Bacterial_flagellum_diagram.png
"whilst we have the support of the entire scientific community as well as the colossal amount of evidence you're obviously oblivious too"
Wow - the entire scientific community believes in evolution? This is a major assumption on your part as not every scientist believes in evolution. But if I were to give you that, would evolution be true because every scientist believes in it? The obvious answer is "no". In Copernicus's day all scientist taught that the earth was the center of the universe, where they all right? It was once taught by all scientist that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects etc... Did this mean they were right? No, we now know that objects fall at the same speed when accelerated by gravity when there is no air resistance. So just because the majority agree on something doesn't mean they're right. However, I would like to return to my point that your statement is false to begin with because not every scientist believes in evolution. For instance, there are many professionally trained scientists who do not believe in the theory of evolution and are available to speak for groups or churches. Multiple speakers have Masters Degrees and PhD's. Some speakers include: Don DeYoung, who has a PhD in physics; Michael Oard, who has a Masters in Atmospheric Science; Eugene Chaffin, who has a Masters in Physics; David Kaufmann, who has a PhD in Human Anatomy; Kevin Anderson, who has a PhD in Microbiology; Mark Armitage, who has a Masters of Science in Biology. So are these men not scientist by your standards?
"Evolution simply describes part of nature & the fact that this part of nature is important to many people hardly makes evolution a religion."
No, what makes it a religion is that your belief in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance.
consider some quotes from your own evolutionist's:
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.
[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.
“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition),
"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].
“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.
"Religion explains ultimate reality whereas evolution ends with the development of life AFTER it had already began"
Of which you are unable to explain how it began, and when you're asked about it you say "evolution and abiogenesis are two different things". Mere dodge ball in my opinion.
Creationism begins with a preconceived conclusion (making it biased from the outset) & desperately tries to find facts to support it (failing miserably as EVERY shred of empirical evidence supports evolution)
As does evolution. I have yet to debate any evolutionist who has not assumed right off the bat that the earth is millions of years old despite the contrary evidences. (ask, and I will be more than happy to provide you with evidence for a young earth) Even when soft dinosaur tissue and blood cells are presented to the skeptics, rather than say maybe dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old, they are busy trying to figure out how blood cells could have survided for millions of years??? And the latter portion of that statement is another assumption as EVERY shred of empirical evidence does not support evolution. The fossil record alone is of great embarrassment to your theory. Gary Parker said;
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)
Article; What does the fossil record teach us about evolution? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
"Evolution is also open to revision or even abandonment as new evidence comes to light unlike the stagnant & bigoted nature of creationism"
This statement, yet again, is another one blindly stated by yourself. If this statement is true why are such information like Haeckel's Embryo drawings which were disproved in 1868 as fraudulent and even his own University held him on trial, still in text books? And what about Piltdown man and other supposed missing links that are still being portrayed in text books.? And Archeopteryx which was proven to be a bird from the beginning obtaining all the necessary components for flight already present. Why aren't these being "abandoned" once disproved? It seems as though your evolutionist just don't want to let them go.
Piltdown Man
A piece of skull bone was found in 1912. Later, a jawbone was discovered nearby and said to be from the same creature as the skull piece. Evolutionists claimed that the skull had human features and the jaw was apelike, showing “proof” that apes evolved into man. Actually, the skull was human, but the jawbone was from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look more human! Yet it took over 40 years before this hoax was disproved.
Archaeoraptor
This more recent discovery was used to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. A Chinese farmer dug up pieces of fossil in two separate places, then pasted the pieces together. It was supposed to look like a dinosaur that was developing feathers. National Geographic magazine published this as proof of the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. Later, the fossil was shown to be from two different animals.
"Look up 'Tiktaalik' if you have trouble accepting there are any transitional forms between marine & land animals"
The fact that you believe Tiktaalik to be a transitional form shows you are parakeeting information. This is a fish, it has gills, not lungs. Your faith is evident, you need to use your "imagination" to turn Tiktaalk into any other thing than a fish.
consider what Dr. David Menton stated regarding this special fish
Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish.
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.”
Without the author’s evolutionary bias, of course, there is no reason to assume that Tiktaalik was anything other than exclusively aquatic. And how do we know that Tiktaalik lost its gill cover as opposed to never having one? The longer snout and lack of bony gill covers (found in many other exclusively-aquatic living fish) are interpreted as indicating a reduced flow of water through the gills, which, in turn, is declared to be suggestive of partial air-breathing—but this is quite a stretch. Finally, what does any of this have to do with fish evolving into land dwelling tetrapods?
"......we will see that there are no known fish with true “legs” (and certainly no feet), and none capable of actually “walking”—except in the most trivial sense of the word. "
"How many people do you know of that have killed in the name of evolution?"
For Starters,
Eric Auvinen:
Just before last year’s shooting, killer Pekka-Eric Auvinen claimed online he would act as a “natural selector” to “eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race, and failures of natural selection.” He concluded, "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. No, the truth is that I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident
. . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!" [emphasis in original]. He also called himself a “social Darwinist” and, during the massacre, wore a shirt that read, “humanity is overrated” in all-caps.
Matt Juhani Saari:
Shot and killed 10 people at a vocational college in the town of Kauhajoki, Finland. Cornered in by police, he shot himself and died later at a hospital. In all, Saari killed eight female students, one male student, and one male teacher, and also wounded a female student. Der Spiegel reports that Saari “was apparently fascinated by the American students who shot up Columbine High School in 1999” in an article explaining how Saari had planned the shooting since 2002
Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine Shooters):
The boys killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others. Eric Harris wore a t-shirt that read "Natural Selection" on it. The boys made a video about a year or so before the shooting. In the video one of the boys, speaking of Isaiah Shoels, an african america athelete. "look for his jaw (Isaiah Shoels) it won't be there, he doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him" (paraphrased) The boys did the shooting on April 20th purposely because it was Hitler's birthday.
Hitler:
Hitler was full of evolutionary thinking. In his book "Mein Kampf" you can read all about his racist philosphy. Hitler also valued both Darwin’s and Nietzche’s books. When Hitler killed 6 million Jews, he was only doing what Darwin taught.
*Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was chancellor of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He carefully studied the writings of *Darwin and *Nietzsche. Hitler’s book, MeinKampf, was based on evolutionary theory (*Sir ArthurKeith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 28). The very title of the book (“My Struggle” [to survive and overcome]) was copied from a Darwinian expression. Hitler believed he was fulfilling evolutionary objectives by eliminating “undesirable individuals and inferior races” in order to produce Germany’s “Master Race” (*Larry Azar, Twen-tieth Century in Crisis, 1990, p. 180).
Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion: ‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
So though evolution is not to be blamed as the direct cause of these actions, it is to be noted for the influence it gave to these individuals.
Joe
11 comments:
I'm not going to read over the whole debate, mostly because your opponent's tone is frustratingly arrogant and it grates me. I would like to comment on one matter.
First of all, the argument that Christianity isn't a religion is quite incorrect. Just look at James 1:26-27. If God even says it's a religion, it's a religion. Some believers often assert that it's a relationship, not a religion. It's a relationship, sure enough, but that's not the full extent of it. If it were only a relationship, it would be not as strictly systematized as what we believe. If it were only a relationship, would there really be such a thing as theology?
You quoted the dictionary. Dictionary.com defines religion as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." If you continue to insist that Christianity isn't a religion, you're lying to yourself.
And do you blame the guy for getting confused about the different branches of Christianity? For an outsider, it looks like nothing less than civil war between denominations.
On a closing note, I would strongly recommend that you read some current literature in favor of evolution. Creationists have a nasty record of unintentionally misrepresenting evolutionary biology. The evidence is more compelling than you give it credit for. If I am right, this doesn't need threaten your believe in God. Far from it! I believe it's just true that we've been interpreting Genesis 1-11 in the wrong light. It's implications stand, and its spiritual teachings are immutable, but the Lord did not mean it as history. Yes, Christians have historically misunderstood it until only recently, but, in a manner of speaking, God likes to be confusing (hence John 6, etc.).
I strongly recommend "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry A. Coyne. He doesn't bash Creationism, but carefully refutes it.
Hello Christian evolutionist,
Thanks for the comment.
In short, regarding your definition of "religion" your running a play on words here. When I say that Christianity is not a "religion" you must keep in mind who I am talking to. In the initial post the individual I was replying to was/is an atheist. And when speaking to an atheist, they do not distinguish Christianity from any other "religion" out there. Therefore when they are expressing their hate regarding, say, the crusades etc... Christianity also gets associated with the event and they are two different groups as Christians also condemn that kind of behavior (roman catholics persecuting people) So it is important to define for them the difference. And in it's true definition Christianity is not a "religion" like Roman Catholicism is. If you have read the scriptures then you would know that the Pharisee's and the Sadducee's were "religious", very religious to be exact. They set some 2,000 plus more "traditions of man" in addition to what God had required of the people causing a great burden on them. Yet Jesus himself said "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:20) So simply put, Christians are not "religious" as in the way we are saved because we follow a many set of rules etc.. Jesus himself said "not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will be saved, but only him who does the will of my father in heaven (Matthew 7:21) This reference is to active church members who were doing things in the name of Jesus. And as you referenced the scripture in James 1:26-27 especially v. 27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." This was something that the Pharisee's and Sadducee's should have been doing but were not.
And while Christianity is a relationship, it is on the basis two major things for the requirement of salvation. Repentance & Faith. Unlike most religions where "works" are often required. We do not perform "works" as a means of being saved. We perform works (good deeds) as a "result" of being saved.
And no I cannot blame the individual for being confused about the many denominations out there. I would point out that in the "original" scriptures which are what Christians defend, not any version of the bible, there is no foundation for the many denominations. We were called Christians in the scriptures, not Baptist, not Presbyterians etc... What God will hold him (Playd76) accountable for is breaking his law (the ten commandments) He will have no excuse when he stands before God on the day of judgment. The bible is specific that even without the bible, man has no excuse for not glorifying God because the whole created world declares what he has done. (Roman 1:20)
And thanks for the recommendation on reading more current evolution literature. I am subscribed to Richard Dawkins' blog and various evolutionist material as well. I assure you I am well acquainted with the latest arguments. I'm also familiar with the #1 site evolutionist love to cite when addressing me on this blog "Talk Origins"
As for your last paragraph, there are many many incorrect notions and theology in it. I'm not quite sure where you stand, though I have some idea by your reply (and your name which contradicts itself) that allow for some kind of integration between God and evolution. Well, let me just note that you must "compromise" heavily your belief to mix the two as they are extremely contradictory to each other.
It is also clear that you do not accept the full authority of the scriptures by interpreting them out of context and are also making God out to be a liar by telling him how he did it when he already told us how he did it. And since I have made several post on this blog already for "theistic evolutionists" such as yourself I won't repeat them but will rather point you to those postings. (post titles listed below this comment)
I will however make some quick comments point by point regarding your last paragraph.
"If I am right, this doesn't need threaten your believe in God."
well you're right that it doesn't threaten my belief in God, frankly nothing you present can threaten my belief in God because unlike someone who "hears" about God I have experienced him and continue to experience Him as I walk with him. However, as mentioned before, the bible (Gods written account as a witness to being there at creation) as already stated that he created the world in 6 literal 24 hr days not millions of years. I find it extremely convenient for you who try to take the word "yom" in Gen 1-11 and say that word even though it's in it's proper context in the original language to mean 6 literal days yet don't assert your notions anywhere else in scripture. In other words you say that word could mean millions of years not just a day, but the same word is being used when Joshua circled Jericho for 7 "days", and when Jesus died and was buried for 3 "days". How come you are not arguing that those days mean millions of years there? Because you know it sounds silly when you say Joshua marched for 7 million years and Jesus was buried for 3 million years right? It sounds just as equally silly when you try to use it in Genesis when it's already accompanied by the words "there was morning and evening" and "on the first day.." etc. May I suggest the only place for it to work and for you to compromise God's word and incorporate extra biblical material such as evolution would and could only be done in Gen. The multiple genealogies throughout scripture would prevent you from sticking millions of years anywhere else..
"I believe it's just true that we've been interpreting Genesis 1-11 in the wrong light."
well then for your statement to be true you would have to imply a couple of incorrect notions here. One, you would have to say that God has been lying to the Israelites for centuries as to how he created the world and the only reason they now know the truth is because scientist came along and discovered the right meaning of Gen 1-11. Which would also imply that God got it wrong and you have it right. What kind of God is that? The scripture teaches that God is a God of clarity not confusion and by the spirit he enables us to gain understanding. I would suggest it's you not God who has it wrong, because if you took a person who has never read the bible or heard of Jesus Christ and locked him in a room for three weeks only giving him a bible to read, he would never coming out thinking that those days mean any other thing than single ordinary 24 hr period days. Maybe the issue is that you just don't believe that God is "able" to do it in 6 literal days? I often wonder why he took so long. Though we know why exactly he did it in 6 and rested on the seventh, to create the model for a 7 day biblical week. God does not like to be confusing, he has made it very clear and easy for a little child to understand, it was man that came along and decided to reinterpret it causing great confusion. And the second notion would be if people got Gen 1-11 wrong and those "days" can be interpreted as "millions" then maybe the rest of the bible is wrong too? Do you believe that Mary was a virgin? Why would you believe that? Have you ever seen or known a virgin to have a baby? Do you believe Jesus died and rose from the dead as the bible says he did? Why would you believe that? Have you ever seen a dead man rise? For you to compromise Gen 1-11 would mean you compromise the rest of scripture if you are to keep in consistency with your interpretations.
I would ask and like to encourage you to stop compromising the word of God. It is extremely reliable and accurate all on it's own. If you were to use the scriptures to validate your belief that God used evolution, you would fail miserably as the bible contradicts everything evolution teaches, evolution is not good science. The two cannot be integrated without compromising. By trying to fit the two you are fulfilling the scripture you yourself quoted ".....and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Thanks for your comments. And I will most certainly look for the book you recommended, thanks again.
Joe
---Theistic Evolutionist Posts---
Feel free to type these titles into the search box in the right column.
Proven by Scripture that God did not use millions ...
Theistic Evolution? Future Shock?
Saved by grace ... and evolution?
Did God Use Evolution To Bring About His Creation?...
And this, it can be argued that you are redefining religion. True or false, religion is religion. Christianity is a religion, and trying to persuade Joe Atheist it isn't is not helping your argument.
1 Cor 11 says that those who eat the body and blood in an unworthy manner are guilty of the body and blood of Christ. John 6 says that those who do not eat his body and blood will not have eternal life. Catholics have unwhittingly distorted this to their own kind of fundamentalism, wherein the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. This is error, we know it is a symbol. But it is such a strong symbol that it as though it is the same as the body and blood of Christ, and those who sin against it sin against him, and they will suffer under the consequences unless rescued by mercy. You'd be surprised how touchy they get if you attack their literal interpretation of the Bible.
Similarly, God has made it evident that Genesis 1-11 is such a symbol. It is not literally to be accepted because of the overwhelming evidence of evolution (which you will deny, naturally). That beginning of Genesis is a unique symbolic story or myth that teaches us astonishing spiritual truth without ever being history, though it was treated as such by early Christians. It is so strong a symbol that we can draw conclusions from it, such as how the Jew needed to rest on the 7th day and how Paul used it to justify how women should not be leaders in the church (see 1 or 2 Timothy).
You may doubt that I have a living and vital relationship with God as you do. The fact remains that God is as real in my life as my mother, and it has been an interactive relationship, in a way that is impossible for false religions who follow fictions.
I am pleased to see you are doing your homework on evolution, though I see your are unpersuaded. I would be very interested to see your rebuttal of one Youtube video that excellent summarizes evolution and rebuts some common misconceptions about it. I think it'd be worthy of a post, if you're up to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
I'm not the sort that takes the days as ages. Birds mostly likely evolved after land animals.
At any rate, I don't believe I'll be discussing this much longer. Internet debates can go on forever, and I don't have time for that. But maybe we will be able to discuss it another way, if the Lord provides the time and means.
Christian Evolutionist,
Thanks for your reply.
Again regarding the defining of "religion" you are missing and have greatly missed the entire point. Simply stated, Christianity is not a religion say, as Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam Etc... It is not to be characterized by works and solely what the individual does to get him or herself to heaven. It is true religion in the sense that we are a people who are saved by grace and not by works, focusing on the fact that there is nothing that man can do to "earn" salvation unlike it's counter parts. In this way and only in this way am I, and have I, been arguing that Christianity is not a "religion" which is how the secular society views it. Now though you may know all of this already, this was being portrayed to an atheist who tries to bundle all belief systems without distinction.
"Similarly, God has made it evident that Genesis 1-11 is such a symbol"
May I ask you why you think Gen 1-11 is to be taken as purely symbolic and not literally? Can you please argue this from the scriptures? I think you'll find you will have a hard time doing this since Jesus himself quoted the old testament as literal history.
Here is a list of Old Testament books quoted by Jesus and other New Testament writers showing they viewed this books as literal and accurate history.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-old-testament-quoted-by-jesus-and-apostles.htm
And there is no such "overwhelming evidence of evolution" there is only your overwhelming presupposition of the evolutionary theory being incorporated into the scriptures. You and I are looking at the same exact evidence. Im believing God and you're believing man's theory. I would love to hear you argue "God used evolution" by the scriptures as I think this would be impossible for you less you twist their obvious and plain meaning. You see, for your theory to be integrated here you would have to ignore many such scriptures and references to the creation. You are in great danger of calling God a liar here in your attempt to show him how He did it when he already told us how He did it. In 1st John 1:10 God calls those who don't believe his testimony about Jesus a liar, why should you not be a liar if you don't believe his testimony about creation? This is clearly not an interpretation issue, as the scripture is plain and clear, this is presupposition, preconceived, bias toward evolution.
Why does Jesus make this statement in Matt 19:4? "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the BEGINNING the Creator 'made them male and female" (emphasis mine) Why does Jesus say "at the beginning..."? If evolution occurred wouldn't Adam and Eve have been at the "end" of Creation? And you say that Adam evolved into his present form? So for millions of years (or however long it took) Adam is now a man, but Eve was taken from his rib? Why would God allow Adam to come forth from the evolutionary process but then make Eve overnight? Is not the scripture clear that he formed her from his rib while he was sleeping? You said God likes to be confusing but the bible says "For God is not a God of confusion but a God of Peace.." (1st Cor 14:33)
In addition the bible says in Roman 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.."
Well, now if evolution were true, this statement by God's Divine influence (2 Tim 3:16) would be false because evolution would place death before Adam when scripture is clear that it came after, and as a result of, Adam's sin. For evolution to have occurred things had to die and mutate, disease and sickness had to occur along with natural selection etc.. How can this be true if God himself said in Gen 1:31 "it is very good" That doesn't sound "very good" to me and completely goes against the nature of God in which he portrayed to us during the creation account.
The truth of the matter is that evolution and the bible are incompatible, for them to be compatible, you would need to ignore so much of scripture.
Why does God say in Exodus 20 "For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is" What do you suppose he meant by that? Im not sure how much "plainer" (if I may make up a word) you can say it than that.
He then goes on to say he "rested on the seventh day" Wow! if a day is a million years that would be some rest huh? I would love to tell my boss "hey I'll be back in a million, I'm taking a little break from work.
Why does God say his "process" in creating Adam; He was "of the dust of the earth" not a result of evolution. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Could God not have made it clear to us some how that Adam was "formed" from an animal or something that would reference Adam's evolution? It would seem this verse would contradict a "molecules to man" mind set.
In all verses regarding the creation days in Gen, it used in "the" first day and "the" second and "the" third day and so on. It's not like the RSV version which changed the days to say "on one day" instead of 'on "the" so and so day.
Why does God says throughout scriptures he "made" and "created" man? These words are used interchangeably. There is nothing here that implies Adam evolved.
The bible says on the third day he made the plants and the trees. On the fourth day the bible says he made the son. Question, if these days are millions of years were those plants and trees waiting on the sun for photosynthesis for millions of years? The insects were made on day five, were the plants waiting for millions of years to pollinate them? Plants could not have survived without insects and the sun for millions of years.
Quote from Professor James Barr (Professor of Hebrew)“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”
there are no verses in the bible where the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) means anything other than a day especially if it's modified by "the first day.." "the second day.." and so on and especially to add to it, scriptures says "there was "morning and evening" on "the so and so day".
The same word is being used when Joshua marches around the walls of Jericho and when Jesus spent three days in the grave. Are you implying that these days mean millions of years for Joshua and Jesus?
Evolution teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds, the bible teaches that birds were created before dinosaurs
Those who teach the big bang idea declare that our sun came long before the earth formed. Also, the earth was formed from a hot molten blob for millions of years before it cooled down. Eventually water formed on the surface.
Now, if we read Genesis 1 in a straightforward way (taking it as it is written—literal history), then we find that God clearly tells us that the earth was created before the sun—and it was not a hot molten blob, but was covered in water on the very first day of creation. (AIG)
excerpt from Answers in Genesis from a previous posting:
"because evolution IS COMPATIBLE with God"
Which “god” are you referring to here? The God of the Bible, who says what He did in Genesis, which disagrees with molecules-to-man evolution. A god of a millions-of-years-old earth is a god of death, not the God of life and God of love that Scripture teaches. Applying attributes of such a false god to the God of the Bible demeans the character and nature of God. It would also mean that an all-good, all-powerful, truthful God deceived Israelites and Christians, who loved and trusted Him for thousands of years, all the while waiting for atheists to “interpret” Genesis properly for us.
I understand that you, like most of us at AiG have been taught evolution, whether in public schools or the media. But holding it in such high regard over the Word of God is not good theology. The false belief system of evolution that has been promoted for 150 years has subtly crept into many Christians’ thinking, and it is time to get back to God’s Word and not be deceived. God's Word is sufficient. In the past 150 years, many once-Christian universities become atheistic upon the acceptance of evolution; public schools have become atheistic upon acceptance of evolution with prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Bible removed from the classroom; nations that were largely Christian have become largely atheistic upon acceptance of evolution (England for example); evolution was a driving force in the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and other mass murderers. After such a history what would possibly make someone think that evolution provides a foundation to lead people to Christ? (AIG)
Read the entire article here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/21/feedback-theistic-evolution
The reason we know that God didn’t use evolution is because He told us what He did. God is perfect and cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) and His Word is flawless (Proverbs 30:5–6). It would be illogical to think that a perfect God, who eye witnessed His creation, would be wrong when He speaks on it and that imperfect, fallible human beings would be right when they speculate about the past, especially when they didn’t eyewitness it. (AIG)
Im truly reinventing the argument here as this has been talked about many times on this blog before - it would be better for you read the articles from AIG and CSE as they do a great job defending this argument using the scriptures and exposing the false logic behind trying to incorporate evolution and the bible. You basically have two choices, place your faith in Gods infallible word, or place it in mans infallible theory
‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’ (Operation: Refuting Compromise (ORC))
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0204lead.asp
Why wouldn’t God use evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/1223.asp
Did the Creator use Evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/evolution.asp
What’s the problem with theistic evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0520.asp
The atheist was right to chastise you. You displayed a gross misunderstanding of how science works. First off, empirical evidence isn't the sole type of evidence, nor is it somehow the "best" form of evidence. Indirect evidence and deduction is another large part of science. You then went on a rant about how evolution is a religion yadda yadda etcetera...
Science deals in knowledge, positively verifiable knowledge. Religion doesn't do this. Just because you "feel" god doesn't mean you know it exists. Science doesn't permit this type of subjectiveness, it is a meritocracy. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
You then just went on to say essentially "Gee, X is complex, what do you have to say about that?? This definately is too complex to explain!!" If you knew anything about evolution you'd know that it is a theory for specifically describing how complex biological systems emerge from purely natural laws.
Really though, your entire argument is one from ignorance and incredulity. If you actually care to learn and not remain ignorant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox
These are just the tip of the iceberg, but because you chose the fastidious "empirical evidence" criterion, the above are observed instances of evolution in a lab, and over the course of human history.
Post a Comment