[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[bibleberean]

Kentucky fried dinosaur?
by Jonathan Sarfati

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... nosaur.asp

Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But this fails to explain how they evolvedâ€â€scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair. There has been no report yet of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing.4

 

[Frost Giant]

For future reference, any article that uses the word "evolutionist" in a non-joking way should be immediately discarded.

 

[WillyGilligan]

No the analogy is not the same.

Actually, an analogy isn't required to be the 'same', just an example of what you're talking about. Sort of like how a parable doesn't have to be exactly like your life for it's lesson to have meaning for you. It's also not normally used to 'prove' an idea so much as it's used to illustrate one. It also tends to be weakly recieved due to this strange tendency in people to take an idea and run it into the ground. In this instance, you're not following her illustration because she's comparing living things to inanimate objects and now you're trying to explain how they're nothing alike. Other times, it becomes a game of 'plot the metaphor' where people start aruging details of how the analogy does or does not map to the topic at hand until all the discussion is completely derailed.

I suggest keeping analogies to a bare minimum and accepting those that are used as an illustration to be seen and then left alone. Just my personal experiences talking.

Yes, natural selection is fact and it's accepted by creationists. However most people make the mistake of assuming that, "a bunch of micro makes macro" which is invalid because of genetics. Just as all dogs descended from one dog, and how all the races came from Adam and Eve. However in order to get macroevolution you need an increase of information in the genome which natural selection does not do. That's where mutations come in, but mutations always result in the loss of information (like unscrambling a puzzle) not gaining.

I addressed my point to Heidi because she seems to be saying that natural selection is completely made up in the human mind with no basis in reality. Either she's mistaken, or she used natural selection when she meant a different term. So, Heidi, do you believe that natural selection (micro-evolution) exists? If you are disputing macro-evolution, that's a seperate issue, but the usage of terms is important.

 

[hansbrix]

I used to be an evolutionists and I gave it up for the following obvious and self testable logical reason:

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

Are you just parroting the usual creationist drivel, or did you have an argument to back that up? Because, even at a cursory glance the idea that genetic mutations can't create new information is absurd.

Please to give some justification for your claim.

2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).

Perhaps you need to reaquaint yourself with the definition of "proof"? Logic appears to have deserted you on this point.

3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

Well that's nice that you think that, but it's not even relevant. You do realise evolution ≠ abiogenesis? And that abiogenesis being true is not a necessary condition for evolution to be true?

 

[Solo]

I used to be an evolutionists and I gave it up for the following obvious and self testable logical reason:

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

Are you just parroting the usual creationist drivel, or did you have an argument to back that up? Because, even at a cursory glance the idea that genetic mutations can't create new information is absurd.

Please to give some justification for your claim.

2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).

Perhaps you need to reaquaint yourself with the definition of "proof"? Logic appears to have deserted you on this point.

3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

Well that's nice that you think that, but it's not even relevant. You do realise evolution ≠ abiogenesis? And that abiogenesis being true is not a necessary condition for evolution to be true?

If you have evidence or material that is a basis for your understanding to this discussion, please respond to the issues, not an individual's experience. Your statement is very close to being a violation of Rule 2 of the TOS. The discussions on this forum will not denegrate to those forums that allow negative attacks on members. Please clean up your style at this forum.
Thanks,
Solo

 

[hansbrix]

If you have evidence or material that is a basis for your understanding to this discussion, please respond to the issues, not an individual's experience. Your statement is very close to being a violation of Rule 2 of the TOS. The discussions on this forum will not denegrate to those forums that allow negative attacks on members. Please clean up your style at this forum.
Thanks,
Solo

Fair enough, my post could have done with less sarcasm. However It certainly wasn't a personal attack on protos, but rather I was challenging the statements he/she made. I'll be a bit more civil about it next time, if you like.

 

[Solo]

If you have evidence or material that is a basis for your understanding to this discussion, please respond to the issues, not an individual's experience. Your statement is very close to being a violation of Rule 2 of the TOS. The discussions on this forum will not denegrate to those forums that allow negative attacks on members. Please clean up your style at this forum.
Thanks,
Solo

Fair enough, my post could have done with less sarcasm. However It certainly wasn't a personal attack on protos, but rather I was challenging the statements he/she made. I'll be a bit more civil about it next time, if you like.

Thank you.

 

[hansbrix]

We are all wrong when we exercise within our own finite understanding. Only by siding with God's Word will we be correct. Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us Trust in God and lean not unto our own understanding, but acknowledge him, and he will direct our paths. I have trusted him as I acknowledge him in his creation, and I am confident in my God given understanding of truth.

So how does that fit with other Christians' "God-given understanding of the truth" being contradictory to yours? Specifically, regarding evolution?

I have no problem with you believing that evolution is false. But "God told me so" is neither justification for pushing this belief on the forums, nor is it a convincing argument for your position. Especially given that other Christians disagree with you.

I respectfully suggest that you put forth a scripturally supported argument for why you believe evolution is false. What this means is you need to show why you believe your interpretation of scripture in relation to evolution/creation is the correct one.

 

[Solo]

We are all wrong when we exercise within our own finite understanding. Only by siding with God's Word will we be correct. Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us Trust in God and lean not unto our own understanding, but acknowledge him, and he will direct our paths. I have trusted him as I acknowledge him in his creation, and I am confident in my God given understanding of truth.

So how does that fit with other Christians' "God-given understanding of the truth" being contradictory to yours? Specifically, regarding evolution?

I have no problem with you believing that evolution is false. But "God told me so" is neither justification for pushing this belief on the forums, nor is it a convincing argument for your position. Especially given that other Christians disagree with you.

I respectfully suggest that you put forth a scripturally supported argument for why you believe evolution is false. What this means is you need to show why you believe your interpretation of scripture in relation to evolution/creation is the correct one.

All Christians have areas in their physical lives that require being "circumcized" in order to grow into the perfect man with the mind of Jesus Christ.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:10-12

The reasons that Christians hold onto the errors of their lives vary, but they can be broken down into one of three areas; the lust of the carnal physical being, the desire of the eyes, and/or the pride of life. These areas are deceptions brought on by the enemy of those who are in Jesus Christ.

14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. 15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:14-17

As believers grow in the Word of God and exercise their life in the Spirit, they mature in Jesus Christ and they understand more and more as time passes, unless they grieve the Holy Spirit and continue living for oneself. The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

As an example. A individual who has a family that depends on his vocation to provide a living for them suddenly becomes a Christian believer after being born again as Jesus taught. His vocation is a highly regarded evolutionist. The Holy Spirit has convicted the new believer after a while that evolution is not true, therefore the individual has to make a decision; find a new vocation or continue in the science that has been manifested as being false before him. Some have a strong enough faith just to rely on God the Father, while others are not as strong and falter. Nonetheless, those that are in error in whatever area of life they are in, God will never leave them, nor will he cease loving them. The sad part is that there are many that think that they are Christians, but they have never been born again as Jesus teaches in John chapter 3.

 

[hansbrix]

The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

So, what if some Christians claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them the understanding that parts of Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical? Because I have a feeling a large number of Christians would claim this. Are you calling them liars, or deluded, or perhaps posessed by Satan?

You have to understand, saying "God told me so", which is essentially all you've done in that post there, is worthless when you're debating this issue. Both sides can say it with equal credibility. The only way to debate the topic is with evidence that is universally available; i.e. scripture, and physical evidence. I would love to see you make an argument citing either or both of those, so we could actually discuss the topic.

 

[Heidi]

The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

So, what if some Christians claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them the understanding that parts of Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical? Because I have a feeling a large number of Christians would claim this. Are you calling them liars, or deluded, or perhaps posessed by Satan?

You have to understand, saying "God told me so", which is essentially all you've done in that post there, is worthless when you're debating this issue. Both sides can say it with equal credibility. The only way to debate the topic is with evidence that is universally available; i.e. scripture, and physical evidence. I would love to see you make an argument citing either or both of those, so we could actually discuss the topic.

They either believe that Jesus is telling the truth or he's not. Maybe God actually created men out of trees! Afterall, dust isn't dust, according to some, it can be apes intsead. In fact, we can make up anything we want and say the whole bible is a fairy tale and Jesus's name was actually Sam!

The only things that are allegorical in the bible are when it says they are allegorical like then Jesus says he's talking in parables or obvious things like Jesus saying he's the gate. Now if Jesus is actually wood, then of course, the disciples are lying when they said he walked and talked. Therefore, Jesus is not acutally a gate, but that is an allegory, because it contradicts other passages in the bible. Jesus obviously means that he functions as a gate. But I realize that many people cannot understand that.

But when people don't like what the bible says, they make up thier own scenarios instead and call them the truth. And the degree that they do this boggles the mind. People can then justify any theory and say it came from the bible. This is putting one's faith in the human imagination instead of the words in the bible which are outside of ourselves, and they need to be kept outside of ourselves, not filtered through our imperfect mind.

 

[Heidi]

And by the way, the Holy Spirit cannot contradict the words in the bible because the bible was also written by the Holy Spirit. Paul points this out in 2 Corinthians 11:4-15, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a different gospel than the one you received, or a different jesus than we preached or you receive a different Spirit than the one you received, you put up with it easliy enough...for such men are false apostles deceitful workmen masquerading as apostles of Christ."

So no, one cannot have the Holy Spirit and make up his own bible. That's what produces cults when someone says he has the Holy Spirit, people blindly believe anything he says and worship him as a god. Again, the Holy Spirit has to agree with th bible.

 

[Solo]

The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

So, what if some Christians claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them the understanding that parts of Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical? Because I have a feeling a large number of Christians would claim this. Are you calling them liars, or deluded, or perhaps posessed by Satan?

You have to understand, saying "God told me so", which is essentially all you've done in that post there, is worthless when you're debating this issue. Both sides can say it with equal credibility. The only way to debate the topic is with evidence that is universally available; i.e. scripture, and physical evidence. I would love to see you make an argument citing either or both of those, so we could actually discuss the topic.

God's Word says that each creation day was an evening and a morning, as well that each created form of life was created after its own kind. Evolutionists can only point to Adam being created out of the dust as proving evolutionary theory in Genesis.

God is able to tell us when he is being allegorical or not. Each time Jesus gives a parable, he explains it to the disciples. Adam is not allegorical. Sin is not allagorical. The Garden of Eden is not allegorical. If you want to put all of your eggs in the basket of men who allude that those portions of scripture are allegorical that is your choice. I have been given a belief that the record of creation in Genesis is true, and the origins of man from evolution is false.

Read Genesis and tell me how you see it.

As far as those that believe evolution is true, I believe as I stated in my previous post that there is some reason for their believing in evolution over the recorded history in Genesis. What is it? It could be a miriad of things, but each one would be in one of three areas; the pride of life, the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eyes.

It doesn't surprise me that those in the younger generations believe in evolution, as it is taught as fact in the public schools today, and no time is spent whatsoever on creation. It takes quite a bit more study to come to the truth of creation today, then in the past. The Bible says that in the latter days there would be a falling away from sound doctrine, and in return a heeding of false doctrines of devils would be accepted.

 

[PeterGriffin]

And by the way, the Holy Spirit cannot contradict the words in the bible because the bible was also written by the Holy Spirit. Paul points this out in 2 Corinthians 11:4-15, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a different gospel than the one you received, or a different jesus than we preached or you receive a different Spirit than the one you received, you put up with it easliy enough...for such men are false apostles deceitful workmen masquerading as apostles of Christ."

So no, one cannot have the Holy Spirit and make up his own bible. That's what produces cults when someone says he has the Holy Spirit, people blindly believe anything he says and worship him as a god. Again, the Holy Spirit has to agree with th bible.

dont you think paul maybe did that himself? how convienent.. you write that you have the holy spirit and your the only 1 right.. and u believe every word he says...

 

[Heidi]

The Word of God does not have man's individual interpretations, but is interpreted to each man as the Holy Spirit gives understanding. Some have to twist the Word of God to say what they want it to say, and some twist the Word of God to reflect their perception of truth; that is why their is many who attack the literal areas of the Word of God with a passion. It would upset one of the three areas that I described.

So, what if some Christians claimed that the Holy Spirit has given them the understanding that parts of Genesis should be interpreted as allegorical? Because I have a feeling a large number of Christians would claim this. Are you calling them liars, or deluded, or perhaps posessed by Satan?

You have to understand, saying "God told me so", which is essentially all you've done in that post there, is worthless when you're debating this issue. Both sides can say it with equal credibility. The only way to debate the topic is with evidence that is universally available; i.e. scripture, and physical evidence. I would love to see you make an argument citing either or both of those, so we could actually discuss the topic.

God's Word says that each creation day was an evening and a morning, as well that each created form of life was created after its own kind. Evolutionists can only point to Adam being created out of the dust as proving evolutionary theory in Genesis.

God is able to tell us when he is being allegorical or not. Each time Jesus gives a parable, he explains it to the disciples. Adam is not allegorical. Sin is not allagorical. The Garden of Eden is not allegorical. If you want to put all of your eggs in the basket of men who allude that those portions of scripture are allegorical that is your choice. I have been given a belief that the record of creation in Genesis is true, and the origins of man from evolution is false.

Read Genesis and tell me how you see it.

As far as those that believe evolution is true, I believe as I stated in my previous post that there is some reason for their believing in evolution over the recorded history in Genesis. What is it? It could be a miriad of things, but each one would be in one of three areas; the pride of life, the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eyes.

It doesn't surprise me that those in the younger generations believe in evolution, as it is taught as fact in the public schools today, and no time is spent whatsoever on creation. It takes quite a bit more study to come to the truth of creation today, then in the past. The Bible says that in the latter days there would be a falling away from sound doctrine, and in return a heeding of false doctrines of devils would be accepted.

Satan is the great deceiver, my friend. And he will do whatever he can to keep people from God even to the insane degree of leading us to believe that men came from animals. The reason Satan gives people to not believe in Genesis, even if they call themselves Christians, is because Genesis doesn't follow human reasoning period. But what they don't understand is God's ways are the opposite of our ways and if God were human he wouldn't be God, he would be human! So God is, by definition, supernatural. No human being could create the world because no human being is omniscient nor omnipotent. It's impossible. Therefore, we cannot possibly have the understanding of the universe that God has, nor will we ever gain that understanding. And that is why poeple who try to play God because they think they can figure out how the word was created on their own without God's help, are not only arrogant, but delusional as well. So not only is it absurd to think that one has that knowledge, but the theories people come up with are ludicrous because they contradict reality. "He who exalts himself will be humbled."

But Genesis does not contradict reality one bit. Humans breed humans and ape breed apes and humans rule over the animals. Since God created the world in the first place, then forming a human out of the dust is child's play for him! But it's not for apes since they still can only be found in the zoos. Giving apes the credit for man's existence not only contradicts the reproductive process and how genes are passed along, but apes are still found in zoos where man put them. So there is nothing about evolution that can be found in reality. Nothing...especially the missing link which is still, and always has been, only in the imagination.

 

[Frost Giant]

I'm sorry, no. Evolution has tons of evidence. Simply because you can't see the differences in animals from generation to generation doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

 

[Heidi]

I'm sorry, no. Evolution has tons of evidence. Simply because you can't see the differences in animals from generation to generation doesn't mean they don't exist. Only that you are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.

Please provide evidence that apes or primates breed human beings. :

 

[hansbrix]

God's Word says that each creation day was an evening and a morning, as well that each created form of life was created after its own kind. Evolutionists can only point to Adam being created out of the dust as proving evolutionary theory in Genesis.

The point here, Solo, is that there doesn't need to be any part of Genesis that suggests evolution. Indeed, there was no need for God to explain to civilisations throughout history the details of how humans evolved from micro-organisms. The specifics aren't important. The important part is communicating to the reader that God created the universe, and that's done just as well with allegory as it is with a literal account.

God is able to tell us when he is being allegorical or not.

Able to, sure. But does he always?

Each time Jesus gives a parable, he explains it to the disciples.

Unless you have some first-hand knowledge you'd like to impart I'm afraid I'm going to have to reject this particular claim. Especially considering how these explanations Jesus supposedly gave for every parable he told aren't recorded in the bible.

Come on Solo. You aren't doing yourself many favours by writing such blatant falsehoods.

Adam is not allegorical. Sin is not allagorical. The Garden of Eden is not allegorical.

These are of course your opinions. While I'm not necessarily disagreeing that all those things aren't allegorical, you simply stating that they aren't isn't going to convince anyone.

As far as those that believe evolution is true, I believe as I stated in my previous post that there is some reason for their believing in evolution over the recorded history in Genesis. What is it? It could be a miriad of things, but each one would be in one of three areas; the pride of life, the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eyes.

You believe this because it suits you. You make this assumption because your beliefs demand it.

One reason that you have neglected to mention is that people believe evolution is true because the physical evidence suggests it. Note that (in your belief system) this is evidence created by God.

It makes perfect sense for a Christian to find out how the world works (using science), and then see how that corresponds with what the bible says. If the physical evidence suggests that Genesis might have been allegorical, then wouldn't it make sense to see that as God's way of directing your understanding of Genesis? After all, the physical evidence was created by God, and He gave us the tools and the abilities with which to analyse it.

The Bible says that in the latter days there would be a falling away from sound doctrine, and in return a heeding of false doctrines of devils would be accepted.

There has been a falling away from sound doctrine ever since the invention of sound doctrine. That's simply the nature of man and religion. Saying that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the "sound doctrine" the bible was speaking about seems a bit presumptuous.

 

[Solo]

Well hansbrix (gibs),
It has been nice.
Solo

 

[hansbrix]

Well hansbrix (gibs),
It has been nice.
Solo

Has it? I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the debate, Solo.

I'd be interested to hear your response to those points I brought up, when you get the chance. I think we're beginning to tackle the meat of the issue.