[_ Old Earth _] Evolution / Creation / Intelligent design

[Barbarian]

And when you are done amending it you will end up with Creation

I accept it as it is. I don't need to amend Genesis to meet any expectations.

 

[freeway]

Just re-cant barbarian answers:

I can personally think of dozens I've encountered

.
Of these dozens you’ve encounter, you say YE turned them to atheist? Well I must say that their faith maybe was never founded on what Christianity is about….. Jesus… I always though that a non belief in God causes atheisms. YE has as much evidence as you do for an old earth, we look at mostly the same evidence and attribute it to our reasoning.. Mine is God did not create disorder “evolution which invokes death to work, mutation, chance, non govern guidance..

Most of them were raised to believe YE creationism was Christianity. When they learned it could not be true, some of them abandoned faith in God or in Christianity.

Sounds more like to me they talked to evolutionist to much and did not check the record for themselves.

You misunderstand. Scientists don't accept theories because they like them. They accept them on the evidence.

As I write this I can think of several evolutions that claim without evolution what else is left.. “God†and they just don’t want that… will get quotes and post them for you..

The point is, the evidence shows YE creationism produces atheists

.
No it does not, I was atheist, turned Christian, and at first of course still believed in the big bang, billions yr old earth. But as I began to investigate my “atheist beliefs that I carried over with me†I began to see that there is an unfathomable amount of evidence for a young earth..

That would be odd, seeing as Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Well I know of a lot of people that believe there is a god/gods and even God. But that all, I know that Japan exist but never been there.. So just because someone says they believe in God, does not mean they BELIEVE in God.. Check the occults..

 

[freeway]

continued:

Barbarian observes:
Rather to anti-evolutionist thinking. Hitler, for example, murdered millions, because he did not understand that evolutionary theory shows us to be a single race. Stalin, who outlawed Darwin, killed millions.

Oh he knew about evolution and he was doing his best to further it along, the super race..

Merely pointing out that the two greatest murderers in history were anti-Darwinists.

I can not say they liked Darwin, but they knew of him and his theory, No God no one to answer to?

Evolution has no eyes for teleology. But most of the great evolutionists have. The were quite aware that evolution does not mean that man is "no more than a primate."

You are true that evolution has no teleology, why because evolution in itself is not true, no evidence to show how one species became another, and evolution of course if it where true needs the billion so that we cannot see it and argue against it.. your theory not mine..

No, it's not. God is not a body. The "image" is our immortal soul and the ability to understand good and evil. Jesus points out that God is a spirit and a spirit has no body.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word…. You see where I’m going.. Jesus was there at creation. End of this argument.

You're dead wrong about his creatures being perfect. No one is perfect but God. And God didn't say His creation was perfect, so it's a bit presumptuous of us to say so.

So your saying God creates imperfection? … interesting..

Would a perfect person rebel against God? No, of course not. And God doesn't say Adam or Eve were perfect; they obviously were not.

Would a perfect angel rebel against God?

 

[freeway]

here are a few of the quotes for ToE and YE.

"More cases of loss of religious faith can be traced to the theory of evolution--- than anything else." -Martin Lings, quoted in Christian Century July, 1982.

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator.. from rational discussion." -Julian Huxley, famous biologist and statesman.

"Belief in evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if that religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." -William Provine, Professor at Cornell University

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism invented by the mind of man." -Richard Dawkins

"I think the most impressive arguments {for God} are those supported by recent scientific discoveries...argument for intelligent design is enormously stronger than when I first met it." Anthony Flew, well known atheist, 2004

"Both the origin of life and ...of the major groups of animals remains unknown" A.G Fisher evolutionist, 2002

"I believe that the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." -Non-Darwinian Evolutionist, Soren Lovtrup, The Refutation of a Myth .

So on and So on.. I could list more but you can see that evolution even from their camp is in trouble, and to say YE is a stumbling block is just absurd. :rolling

 

[truthlover]

freeway01 writes,

YE creationist give all the credit to God,

But what sort of God? The God of the scriptures describes Himself as a loving father, daddy actually, who talks to His children and calls them to live by every word that proceeds (present tense) from His mouth. Who "conceals a matter" so that, with His help and words, we can "search it out."The God of the YE creationists writes down for all time what He has to say, and expects His followers to read it and take it literally as best they can.

Children go to learn, and recognize hypocrisy, and see at once that their YE teachers while selling the scriptures as true, were blatently misrepresenting its message. Sadly, the theory of evolution suggests that they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Barbarian]

Of these dozens you’ve encounter, you say YE turned them to atheist? Well I must say that their faith maybe was never founded on what Christianity is about….. Jesus… I always though that a non belief in God causes atheisms.

No true Scotsman, um?

YE has as much evidence as you do for an old earth

Now would be the time to trot it out, then.

Barbarian observes:
Most of them were raised to believe YE creationism was Christianity. When they learned it could not be true, some of them abandoned faith in God or in Christianity.

Sounds more like to me they talked to evolutionist to much and did not check the record for themselves.

You saw the testimony of a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Barbarian observes:
You misunderstand. Scientists don't accept theories because they like them. They accept them on the evidence.

As I write this I can think of several evolutions that claim without evolution what else is left.. “God†and they just don’t want that… will get quotes and post them for you..

Could you find any that say they accept evolution because they like it?

Barbarian observes:
The point is, the evidence shows YE creationism produces atheists

No it does not, I was atheist, turned Christian, and at first of course still believed in the big bang, billions yr old earth.

Um, that's not part of evolutionary theory. You seem to have never understood what it was in the first place.

But as I began to investigate my “atheist beliefs that I carried over with me†I began to see that there is an unfathomable amount of evidence for a young earth..

As I said, now's the time to show us.

Barbarian chuckles:
That would be odd, seeing as Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

Well I know of a lot of people that believe there is a god/gods and even God.

So evolution wasn't do deny God after all? Imagine that.

 

[jasoncran]

barbarian i refuted that one, i repeat darwin died not repenting and in sin, sadly. he never claimed to still believe and attend any church. i posted a link on that.

btw what group of churchs do you attend i have found thiestic evolutionists to be in a minority.

i have been to at least 10 that i know of that disagree with evolution.

 

[jasoncran]

he was rather agnostic and never really had a solid biblical foundation, unless you unitarism a biblical faith.

darwin didnt want to mix religious views, he wanted science to be neutral, but did admit that the he was conformted by the fact that God didnt creat the universe. seems to too harsh if he did this purposely.

he mostly likely didnt believe in the lord of the bible but rather a diestic form.

not the same god there
he was agnostic, never really coming to christ ,yet never denying him as the lord.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/what-did ... ve-article

imho you cant give God credit for creation when you dont know who or what god is.

 

[Barbarian]

here are a few of the quotes for ToE and YE.

"More cases of loss of religious faith can be traced to the theory of evolution--- than anything else." -Martin Lings, quoted in Christian Century July, 1982.

Why would the unsupported assertion of some magazine writer mean anything, especially considering the testimony of a Christian who nearly lost his faith because of YE creationism?

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator.. from rational discussion." -Julian Huxley, famous biologist and statesman.

Why would I take the word of an atheist over that of a Christian? More to the point, why did you?

BTW, did you remove the central part of that quote yourself, or did someone else do it, and tell you it was an honest representation of what Huxley actually said?

Belief in evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if that religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." -William Provine, Professor at Cornell University

Kenneth Miller is a prominent evolutionary scientist, and is a very orthodox and devout Christian. Among other prominent evolutionary scientists who accepted God are Theodosius Dobzhansky, Alfred Wallace, Charles Hunt Morgan, Francisco Ayala, and many others. So Prof. Provine, by numerous counter-examples, is stuffed with prunes.

I think the most impressive arguments {for God} are those supported by recent scientific discoveries...argument for intelligent design is enormously stronger than when I first met it." Anthony Flew, well known atheist, 2004

You are possibly not aware that Flew thought there was a God, but described him as a "cosmic Saddam Hussein." Not exactly the best authority, either.

"Both the origin of life and ...of the major groups of animals remains unknown" A.G Fisher evolutionist, 2002

Again, did you remove the words that were edited out, or did you just uncritically accept them from someone else?

I believe that the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." -Non-Darwinian Evolutionist, Soren Lovtrup, The Refutation of a Myth .

Lovtrup was honest, but badly mistaken:

The reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous.

But investigation has shown that is exactly what happens, and that we never see any such change that could not have appeared by small changes that were either advantageous or neutral.

So on and So on.. I could list more but you can see that evolution even from their camp is in trouble

Wouldn't seem so. And answer me about the parts edited out of those "quotes" and then we'll go into them in some depth, O.K.?

and to say YE is a stumbling block is just absurd.

As you see, from a Christians own testimony, YE is exactly that. It's not just that it's contrary to Genesis, it's a real atheist-maker.

 

[Barbarian]

barbarian i refuted that one, i repeat darwin died not repenting and in sin, sadly. he never claimed to still believe and attend any church. i posted a link on that.

Late in life, Darwin said he was leaning toward agnosticism. However, he was a rather orthodox Anglican while writing The Origin of Species. He mentioned that he was teased by the officers of the Beagle about his orthodox Anglican beliefs.

btw what group of churchs do you attend

I'm a Roman Catholic.

i have found thiestic evolutionists to be in a minority.

There are slightly more Roman Catholics than all other Christians combined. The Catholic Church has no problems with evolution, provided one accepts that God did it. The second largest group of Christians are the Eastern rite Churches, who likewise accept that evolution is consistent with Christian faith. The most numerous Protestants are Anglican, who likewise accept this. Most Lutheran bodies do also.

YE creationism is not the standard Christian belief.

i have been to at least 10 that i know of that disagree with evolution.

Some Protestant sects, particularly those close to Seventh-Day Adventists, are very much on the side of YE.

 

[logical bob]

I still stand by what I said before - scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence. The personal beliefs of scientists are irrelevant.

As we're discussing Darwin's beliefs again, however, as a young man Darwin studied theology at Cambridge under pressure from his family, with a view to becomming a priest. He wrote later of this time "I read with care a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted."

He lost his faith gradually over his lifetime, for a number of reasons. In his posthumously published autobiography he wrote: "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

He was no atheist crusader in the style of Dawkins, however. When an outspoken atheist asked Darwin's permission to dedicate a book to him, Darwin declined, saying in a letter:"though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science."

 

[jasoncran]

odd you are the only roman catholic that accepts that stuff that i have met. i do talk to some.

if the rc church and others deny the cross does that make it right?

handy is a lutheran and so is mcjjb. they deny the toe as truth.

by your own logic we fundies and those protentestants must be wrong cause we dont accept the rcc interpreatation of the scriptures. the more of a consesus must make it right then.

i have a lot of issues with the rcc interpretion of things.

logical bob i was adressing the comment of barbarian stating that darwin believed in the god of the bible.

unless you think that one or a group of supposed peer review are computers that have no emotions or a group bias. world view does matter. we arent robots.


world views do matter. why is it with science some seem to think that a peer group is assumed to be totally neutral and not fallable. isnt science a human instution prone to the same things that any group of men or idea or instution fall prone to.

 

[Barbarian]

odd you are the only roman catholic that accepts that stuff that i have met. i do talk to some.

The Church does not make any particular belief on evolution required; all that Catholic doctrine requires is the admission that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.â€
Pope Pius XII Humani Generis

if the rc church and others deny the cross does that make it right?

The only reason Protestants have the cross is it was preserved and taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

handy is a lutheran and so is mcjjb. they deny the toe as truth.

The Missouri Synod Lutherans are one of the few Christian Churches to officially deny evolution. But the world organization of Lutherans admits it.

The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution, but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that there is in it, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days.
http://www.firstlutheranifalls.org/Defa ... x?tabid=57

By your own logic we fundies and those protentestants must be wrong cause we dont accept the rcc interpreatation of the scriptures. the more of a consesus must make it right then.

Well yes, but none of us are perfect in our understanding. It's not a salvation issue.

i have a lot of issues with the rcc interpretion of things.

Which doesn't necessarily mean you're going to hell. As Lumen Gentium makes clear, Protestants are our brothers in Christ, and their institutions save as well.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
Lumen Gentium Vatican Council II

logical bob i was adressing the comment of barbarian stating that darwin believed in the god of the bible.

He did when he wrote his book, true.

unless you think that one or a group of supposed peer review are computers that have no emotions or a group bias. world view does matter. we arent robots.

Of course not. We each think we have the truth.

World views do matter. why is it with science some seem to think that a peer group is assumed to be totally neutral and not fallable.

Scientists would never claim that it is. It's not perfect; it's just the best way we have now of making sure we get it right. And keep in mind, that's only true for science; it won't work at all for faith.

 

[truthlover]

Remember that the word "confusion" means "fused with." In the theory of evolution, the idea of an old earth, the idea of adaptation to a niche, and the idea of natural selection are fused together. The first two of these ideas are very probably true, and reflect both God's patience and His purposefulness. The third idea is a null hypothesis, the postulate that no external selection agent, such as artificial selection, has worked in the selective process. But, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, natural selection is unprovable. Statistically, when the data do not refute a null hypothesis, this means that insufficient data have been gathered to detect whatever difference there might be.

And, theologically, it is only the idea of natural selection, that neither God nor the devil have interfered or meddled with selection, that contradicts orthodox theology. Leaving either the devil or God out of one's thinking in trying to understand what has happened, or will happen, varies from foolish to disastrous.

Did something very important happen 6000 years ago? God told me, "Yes!" Was the "beginning" billions of years ago? He again told me, and others, "Yes!"

Note that even the evolutionists saw the problem, when they invented sexual selection, to account for peacock's tails. So when confronted with great cathedrals or pyramids, of quite uncertain adaptive significance, what's the problem? Human act like any other domesticated species, "slaves to sin" or to "sheep of a shepherd." The problem is, they not only ignore artificial selection from higher beings, they also ignore disinformation campaigns from the same. But the truth will out.

 

[freeway]

Barbarian asked if:

Could you find any that say they accept evolution because they like it?

talking about sciencist that follow evolution because the alterntive is God! so I'll list a few

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society

.
Just a few here, somethimes i love quote mining..

 

[freeway]

Barbarian asking for proof for a young earth..

Now would be the time to trot it out, then.

I do believe this topic has been cover just recently but again I will just show a few..

Age Estimate

1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max

2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years

3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max

4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max

5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max

6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max

8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years

9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island
5,000 - 10,000 years

11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max

12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max

13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max

14. Historical Records
5,000 years max

15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years

16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years

17. Population Growth
10,000 years max

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years
These may show a million yrs in some cases, but not billions and billion evolution need to get their boat to float..

 

[lordkalvan]

Barbarian asking for proof for a young earth..

Now would be the time to trot it out, then.

I do believe this topic has been cover just recently but again I will just show a few....

Unfortunately, none of which survives close scrutiny. For example, you cannot carbon-date dinosaur bones because they are not organic material. If you attempt to carbon-date dinosaur bones, all you could possibly be returning a result for is contaminating material. The population growth example is simply absurd. And so on.

 

[Barbarian]

Tonight perhaps I'll have time to dispose of these in detail. One point; fossilized bones often contain inorganic carbon, but since the half-life of C-14 is so short, such fossils merely peg the meter and all scientists can say using that method is that the bones are older than 50,000 years (or whatever the limits of the equipment happen to be)

Maybe there's a PRATT website that we can use. I'll look.

 

[lordkalvan]

Tonight perhaps I'll have time to dispose of these in detail. One point; fossilized bones often contain inorganic carbon, but since the half-life of C-14 is so short, such fossils merely peg the meter and all scientists can say using that method is that the bones are older than 50,000 years (or whatever the limits of the equipment happen to be)

Maybe there's a PRATT website that we can use. I'll look.

I think many of these arguments can be sourced to Kent Hovind. TO has a comprehensive refutation of these here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

 

[freeway]

Yes, I'm sure you could put these argument at Hovind door, after all he to is a creationist along with an un-numbered others that believe the same. I still believe no one has claimed the 250,000 to prove him wrong or to prove evolution right.....ouch....One last thing can't wait for Hovind to get out of jail. Just though I'd bet you to the punch..

yes I to will be waiting for your replies ... Barbarian