[_ Old Earth _] Evidence

[legamus]

bryan, you sound to me like one of those people that think evolution is a big satanic conspiracy.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware that many humanists try to claim that these minor changes count as evolution, but that is part of their deception

i don't know what a humanist is but i don't consider myself one.
count as evolution? part of their deception? those observations are what lead to that sort of theory in the first place! look the world 'evolution' up in the dictionary for some help. do you honestly think it's satanic, or blasphemous or deceptive to look at one fossil that is older than an other but morpholically similar and theorize, 'hmmm, its possible the species represented by this here fossil over the years changed to look like this other fossil'. explain to me the big deal that that is?? anyways, the fossil record is so incomplete that for that to happen and be true would be pretty lucky. but as a theory i honestly don't see what people get so worked up about it. and yes, the actual theories abound in great number but think about what they're dealing with. it's pretty open to interpretation.

 

[Featherbop]

Legamus, I think a humanist is one who regards himself to be god-like.
Like being the most intelligent being or type of being in existance.

I think that what itis anyway....

 

[saved4life]

Legamus, I think a humanist is one who regards himself to be god-like.
Like being the most intelligent being or type of being in existance.

I think that what itis anyway....

No, a humanist is just a euphemism for an atheist. Atheists don't think they're gods. They just contend that all religion is man-made. They love mankind and seek to better it with education, science, medicine, etc.

 

[Bryan]

bryan, you sound to me like one of those people that think evolution is a big satanic conspiracy.

Satanic? Not necessarily. A conspiracy? Absolutely.

ido you honestly think it's satanic, or blasphemous or deceptive to look at one fossil that is older than an other but morpholically similar and theorize, 'hmmm, its possible the species represented by this here fossil over the years changed to look like this other fossil'. explain to me the big deal that that is??

Nothing wrong with that line of thinking. I don't have any problem with anyone saying that they THINK evolution may have been the way things got the way they are. It's when they try to say that it's a proven fact, which is a bold faced lie, that I have a problem.

 

[victorhadin]

Legamus, I think a humanist is one who regards himself to be god-like.
Like being the most intelligent being or type of being in existance.

I think that what itis anyway....

No, a humanist is just a euphemism for an atheist. Atheists don't think they're gods. They just contend that all religion is man-made. They love mankind and seek to better it with education, science, medicine, etc.

I'll have to contradict you there. An atheist is not necessarily a humanist at all, and I will call up the (inevitable) dictionary definition to that effect:

Main Entry: hu·man·ism
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&-"ni-z&m, 'yü-
Function: noun
Date: 1832
1 a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2 : HUMANITARIANISM
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

Atheism:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

They are by no means synonymous.

 

[saved4life]

I'll have to contradict you there. An atheist is not necessarily a humanist at all, and I will call up the (inevitable) dictionary definition to that effect:

Dictionaries suck. :

Secular Humanism is a more contemporary term. It's emphasis is on atheism, but positive atheism with a hopeful outlook for the future of mankind with the advancements and problem-solving that science, medicine, and technology can bring.

That dictionary definition was concentrating on the "humanities" aspect of the older meaning, like culture and art. Nobody cares about that stuff anymore. :

An atheist might not be a humanist, but a secular humanist is an atheist.

 

[legamus]

thanks for the info on humanism. i confess i went to the dictionary beside the computer here, which i felt dumb doing (remember that line in office space "i can't believe what nerds we are looking up money laundering in the dictionary") and it's apparently somewhat lacking as 'humanism' wasn't in it.
i see your problem bryan and i agree. it annoys me when people present any viewpoint when talking about this stuff and present it as absolute fact but i take it both ways: completely rejecting all evolutionary models or absolutely supporting one. personally, i don't think we'll ever really know simply because enough material doesn't fossilize to present a complete historical picture. that's why evolutionary theories abound almost as numerous as the people who think on them. but in that i see the lack of a conspiracy because that would take a huge body of people to agree to work together to pull something like that off and i think that's contrary to human nature. governements can't keep highly sensitive stuff secret long which should be easy so a conspiracy on a scale this huge is too much for me to swallow.

 

[Barbarian]

No, a humanist is just a euphemism for an atheist. Atheists don't think they're gods. They just contend that all religion is man-made. They love mankind and seek to better it with education, science, medicine, etc.

In fact, there were no athiest humanists at all until very recently. Humanism is a Christian movement, based on piety and an interest in God's relationship to man.

The great Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886 - 1968) once wrote:

"There can be no humanism without the Gospels."

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Excellent post, Barbarian.

BL

 

[Barbarian]

BL, I see the link for CARM. Do you post there?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

No, I normally use it for a reference source though. I did return to the TruthTree recently - the Abortion page only. You oughta' check it out - it's pretty interesting how I was welcomed back...



BL

 

[Barbarian]

Wow. I went back and looked. Not good. Even some people who used to be decent seem to have become meaner and lower. I left my remonstrance, and then took my leave. Maybe for good.

I never went to the abortion board; I just gave up arguing with people about it.

I'm telling you, when they let Ronn act up and abuse newcomers, it was bound to coarsen all discourse over there.

Except for now, I haven't been there in a while. Other than crossbowman, skibummer, and DWA, I haven't much interest in what anyone says there anymore.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I agree. It's sad though that people can be so blinded by a certain belief that they can't even be respectful of those who hold to another belief.

Like you and me... we don't agree about the timespan that the universe, but I can respect your opinion and you respect mine. I guess though that there's something stronger that binds us. Perhaps the idea that every person is important and one of God's babies reminds you and me of the bigger picture.

BL

 

[Grace Alone]

Well, I'm new here, so I only skimmed this long thread this morning. Forgive me if I reiterate something that's already been said, because I didn't read everything thoroughly....

I'm not all that knowledgeable about biology, geology, etc. but I don't understand why creationism and evolution must be at such odds. I admit...I don't know for sure how the earth was created, except that it was created by God. I don't know if he did it in 7 literal days or over a span of billions of years. Isn't that the essence? Evolution does not mean that God was not just as involved in his creation as the traditional young earth theory. It just means that he went about creating in a different way than what we were taught in kindergarten Sunday school. I don't see anything wrong with that.

God's ways are not our ways. We are not limiting God or implying he is less powerful if the world was created through evolution. I lean toward believing old earth theory, as opposed to new, because I think there is a lot of proof in our earth that supports it, but that doesn't change what I think about God as creator. His hand is still in everything, and nothing in his creation is accidental or a mistake. If anything, the complexities of evolution seem to point more to his creativity and control, than the thought that he just created everything "boom - boom - boom," in hardly any time at all. An artist revels in the process of creating. Of course he wants the satisfaction of completing his work, but most of his love, energy and enjoyment goes into the time put forth in creating.

I don't feel threatened by the thought that the world may have begun in this way. God does everything with intention - He is in control of His world. It just seems to me that many Christians freak out by anyone challenging their belief that God created the earth in a literal week. I think that doing that puts God in a box and limits his greatness.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

The problem for me is that if one accepts macroevolution (going along with species and not "kinds"), then one must accept:

1. The Biblical days are out of order (plants were created before celestial bodies).

2. Adam and Eve were not created in the manner the Bible recounts and in fact are simply another creature, slightly more advanced than previous bipeds.

3. God spent billions of years before arriving at a few thousand years which encompass the totality of His plan and desire to create the universe.

4. The descendants of Adam and Eve are most likely false and perhaps completely non-existant.

5. Usually, those who dismiss the literal creation also dismiss a worldwide flood - thus, Noah and much of those stories are incorrect or partially fabricated.

BL

 

[Grace Alone]

Isn't there a view that the world existed prior to the creation described in the Bible? Genesis implies that the earth was there before the sevend day creation and that it was covered with water. (the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said let there be light). I believe this theory asserts that the earth before this was the prehistoric earth of the dinosaurs and all that, and that there was a worldwide catastrophe that caused the earth to be covered with water and darkness, and then God created this current world. I don't know if I got that right, and I'm not saying I believe it because I don't know much about it, but thought I'd throw it out there. I will try to do some research on that.

BL:

I don't believe that we are descendants of monkeys either. Isn't our dna too different" (again, not a bio person at all). I believe as the Bible says that we were created in God's image, but I don't see why Adam and Eve couldn't have looked like the fossils of the neanderthal. Being created in God's image is not only about appearance but more about our inward attributes - our minds and hearts. So anyway, I don't think your #2 is a very strong arguement. And I don't understand your fourth point about their descendants being false - can you please explain, I'm confused on that.

I also don't understand your statement that if you dismiss the literal creation, you dismiss the flood. Why is that? Can you give some proof for that assertion?

As for #3, as I said before, God's ways are not ours. We cannot fathom him. And anyway, time is endless for God. If he's always been, then why shouldn't he have created things billions of years before, even if he didn't create us until a few thousand years ago. If you're going on that logic, then why didn't he create us billions of years ago, instead of only recently. It may seem superflous to us, but if he did create life that long ago, it wasn't a waste. You could ask why the universe is so vast when earth seems to be the only inhabited planet. That doesn't seem logical either.

So, you have a point with #1 - things being out of order. When I have time, I'll try to look into that too.

As I said before, I don't know without a doubt how God created the world. I want to keep an open mind about it. If I do enough research to warrant a firm and unchanging view, then that will be my stance. I'm open to solid arguements from both sides. I just lean toward old earth.

 

[Barbarian]

If one accepts that Genesis is often allegorical, then the inconsistencies and logical contradictions are no longer there.

There are good, and wise, and learned, and pious people on both sides of the issue. And it's not a salvation issue.

But I can't find a way to make a literal Genesis work.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, BL, I left a message myself on the TT abortion board. I think I hacked off a number of them, including some I thought were my friends.

Not much reason to go back, I guess.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

And I think it's best to not look at the responses you get either. Seems they only agitate me and cause me to continue to want to defend myself - a never ending cycle of blaming and defending...

There are better places to debate and discuss information!

BL

 

[Veritas]

Okay, this is a reply to one of victorhadin's statements. However, it is meant for everyone as well.

Our genetic code, DNA and RNA both, is chock-full of deactivated and useless genes. Such excess complexity is prevalent in an evolutionary system, where there is no major advantage to getting rid of unwanted genes if they are 'turned off' or made useless in some other way. As a result, there is no selection criteria favouring their disappearance, and they stay.

This is not entirely true. The "non-coding" genes once viewed as junk are now known to give rise to active RNAs. This is a very recent discovery. If you'd like to learn more about it check out Scientific American November 2003 "The Unseen Genome" Gems among the Junk

quoted from the Scientific American:
"The failure to recognize the importance of introns "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology""

The point I am trying to make is that when we approach things scientifically, we should be careful not to let our own ego get in the way of the method. Remember, The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge.

This also demonstrates another point, which I think some creationists overlook. "Science" will never find "truth". The beauty of the scientific method is that theories are disproven, never proven. There is always the possibility of a new experiment or a new observation that will conflict with a longstanding theory. This should be quite a comfort to christians or to those of any other faith who believe that science may be in conflict with scripture.

Victorhadin, I am not trying to say that because of the finding published in scientific american, evolution is not a sound theory. I think its the best theory out there now, and explains many things well. And to my fellow christians, by saying I think evolution is a sound theory, I am not rejecting the "truth" I believe is in the Bible.

Whenever I hear a debate between evolution and creationism(which usually turns into christianity) it doesn't work. And it doesn't work because there are really two different planes of thought which can't meet.

Creationists: The scientific method attempts to minimize the bias or prejeduce in the experimenter when testing the hypothesis. That's not really possible when the perfered outcome is based is on a scriptural passage.

Evolutionists: I hope you find the "truth" that matters.