Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Barbarian]

By "later", I mean the early 20th century when YE creationism was invented. Prior to that , most creationists were OE creationists. Even as far back as St. Augustine,Christians realized that the Genesis account could not be a literal history. Augustine, who is considered one of the great theologians by Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, pointed out that it was a logical absurdity to take the "days" in Genesis as literal 24 hour days. He could hardly find otherwise. "Yom" (the word used in Genesis) could mean, in Hebrew a long time, a lifetime, one's particular experience of time, and yes, sometimes a solar day. And those meanings are all found in the Bible.

YE creationism was invented in the early 1900's by a Seventh-day Adventist "prophetess.In the 19th century, Christians would no more doubt the fact of evolution than they would doubt the fact of heliocentrism. (most early Christians believed in geocentrism, and thought the Bible declared it so; even Luther and Calvin denounced heliocentrism as contrary to scripture)

In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. -
C.H. Spurgeon
http://www.oldearth.org/spurgeon/spurgeon_sermon_30.htm

Even as recently as the Scopes Trial, the form of creationism presented therein was Old Earth creationism. William Jennings Bryan, under oath admitted that there was no religious objection to an Earth millions of years old.

It certainly is possible to be a YE creationist, and still be a Christian. But YE creationism has never been the belief of most Christians. Just as many Christians once thought the Sun went around the Earth, so did some Christians in the past think that the world was very young. But it was never orthodoxy.

And no, God will not send you to Hell for believing in YE, if you follow Him in other respects. But you will have a closer relationship with Him, if you don't add new doctrines like YE to your faith.


If you doubt this, I would be pleased to show you the details. Meanwhile, it would be good if you cous the evidence that Hyracotherium and Equus can be found in the same strata. A review of the literature shows the most recent fossil of Hyracotherium to be over 40 million years old, and the oldest fossil of Equus to be about 3.5 million years old. You've got a huge gap to explain. And no, repeating the claim with no evidence will not help you.

 

[TOG]

By "later", I mean the early 20th century when YE creationism was invented.

It wasn't until the 18th century that anybody believed the earth to be millions, let alone billions of years old. Before that, everyone believed that the earth was just a few thousand years old. Even Johannes Kepler wrote in his book Mysterium that the date of creation was April 27 3977 BC. I've already shown that Christians and Jews in the first few centuries AD believed the earth was only a few thousand years old. How could they have believed something that wasn't invented until nearly 2000 years later?

Meanwhile, it would be good if you cous the evidence that Hyracotherium and Equus can be found in the same strata. [/quote]

I already did. You ignored it, which is exactly what I expected from you.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

I noted with some amusement that Henry Morris is cited as an expert on horse evolution. From that article:

In Oregon, the three-toed grazer Neohipparion (very much like Merychippus) has been found with Pliohippus. In the Great Basin area, Pliohippus has been found with the three-toed Hipparion throughout the timeframe supposedly represented. Evolutionary scientists freely admit this situation--and to their credit often attempt to correct the misconceptions--but still the horse series appears in the textbooks.

And should. Merychippus is found in the fossil record from about 17-11 million years ago, and Pliohippus from about 12-6 million years ago. It's not at all unusual for a species to give rise to another species, and to continue on for a long time. Polar bears evolved from brown bears, but no one is surprised that we still have brown bears.

Hipparion is not on the lineage of horses leading to Equus. It was a separate branch that died out about a million years ago. There are many other lines of horses, than the one that leads to the surviving genus, Equus. This has been understood (and in textbooks) for over 45 years.

Any three fossils can be placed in a line and an evolutionary story can be told about the transformation of one into the other. And a different story could be told if the fossils were arranged in a different order.

A profoundly ignorant statement. Let's try Archaeopteryx, (a very birdlike dinosaur) Thrinaxondon (a somewhat mammal-like reptile), and Carachodon megalodon (a giant shark). Show me a scientifically-supportable way of explaining those as transitional to each other.

It is interesting to note that Hyracotherium was so named because its specimens looked similar to the hyrax.

No. Here's the comment from Richard Owen, who discovered and described it:
The general form of the skull was probably intermediate in character between that of the Hog and the Hyrax. The large size of the eye must have given to the physiognomy of the living animal a resemblance to that of the Hare and other timid Rodentia.

Without intending to imply that the present small extinct Pachyderm was more closely allied to the Hyrax than as being a member of the same order, and similar in size, I propose to call the new genus which it unquestionably indicates, Hyracotherium, with the specific name leporinum.

Morris is, BTW, the guy who claimed that blacks have a "genetic character" that makes then spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people, so it's not surprising he has some weird opinions about living things.

And you still haven't shown us the evidence for Hyracotherium, and Equus being in the same strata. Hint: repeating the claim without evidence of such fossils won't help you.

 

[Barbarian]

It wasn't until the 18th century that anybody believed the earth to be millions, let alone billions of years old.

It wasn't until Copernicus made the theory well-known, that anybody believed that the Earth went around the Sun. And prominent churchmen like Luther and Calvin denounced heliocentrism as contrary to scripture. I don't see the point. YE creationism has greater problems than getting the age wrong.

 

[TOG]

Hint: repeating the claim without evidence of such fossils won't help you.

Isn't that what you do? I pointed out that ants can't live without protozoans in their guts to digest cellulose for them, and that the protozoans can't live without the ants. I asked how evolution could explain that and your answer was basically "they evolved to depend on each other". In other words, you just restated your position. Why is that valid when you do it, but not when others do it? Besides, I did more than just restate my opinion. I offered a source that mentioned particular places where these fossils had been found. Your only answer to that seems to be that the man who said it was a racist.

How do you like that? The Preservation of Favoured Races. Looks like Darwin was a racist. And it's not just one word on the cover page (wich I admit could be interpreted differently). In Decent of Man Darwin wrote:

Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.

He believed some races to be more evolved than others. His book, on The Origin of Species was used by the Nazis to justify their idea of a master race. Does that invalidate all his works? It would seem, according to the logic of some here, that it does. If a man doesn't pay his taxes, then he can't know anything about evolution. If a man is a racist, then he can't know anything bout evolution. According to that logic, I don't see any reason to pay attention to what Darwin said about evolution. It's not as if the guy had any real education in biology or any related subject.

The TOG​

 

[TOG]

It wasn't until Copernicus made the theory well-known, that anybody believed that the Earth went around the Sun. And prominent churchmen like Luther and Calvin denounced heliocentrism as contrary to scripture. I don't see the point. YE creationism has greater problems than getting the age wrong.

The point is that before the late 18th century, everybody, including the foremost scientists of the time, believed the earth to be young. Most also believed it was created. Put the two together and you (are you ready for it?)... Young Earth Creationism. It wasn't invented in the 20th century, as you claim. It's what people have believed for thousands of years.

The TOG​

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It wasn't until Copernicus made the theory well-known, that anybody believed that the Earth went around the Sun. And prominent churchmen like Luther and Calvin denounced heliocentrism as contrary to scripture. I don't see the point. YE creationism has greater problems than getting the age wrong.

The point is that before the late 18th century, everybody, including the foremost scientists of the time, believed the earth to be young.

And then, as evidence accumulated, everyone, including Christians, accepted the fact that it was very old. Just as they had earlier accepted that the Earth went around the Sun, even if many people claimed it was contrary to scripture. That's how it always works.

Remember, geocentrism wasn't Christian orthodoxy any more then a young Earth was Christian orthodoxy. These were just people's assumptions.

If you put two and two together, you realize that doctrines like geocentrism creationism are man's revisions of God's word. Remember, YE creationism was invented in the early 20th century. It was far more than the idea that the Earth was young. It was also the denial that God created life by natural means, the erroneous doctrine of "life ex nihilo." It was the claim that all of Genesis was literally true, although Christian leaders had pointed out that such a revision was logically absurd.

It wasn't invented in the 20th century, as you claim.

It's a demonstrable fact that it was. Read Ron Numbers' historical research in The Creationists. It's all very well-documented.

It's what people have believed for thousands of years.

No. Some people had concluded the Earth was produced in one six-day period, but most, as you see, did not. And no one thought it was an issue of much importance. That only happened in the early 1900s, when the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism.

Even in 1925 during the Scopes trial, YE creationism was not yet accepted by most creationists. This from the trial, when arch-creationist Wm. Jennings Bryan was questioned as to those beliefs:

Q:"You have given considerable study to the Bible, haven't you, Mr. Bryan?"
A:"Yes, sir; I have tried to ... But, of course, I have studied it more as I have become older than when I was a boy."
Q:"Do you claim then that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?"
A:"I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there ..."
Q: "Do you think the earth was made in six days?"
A: "Not six days of 24 hours ... My impression is they were periods ..."
Q: "Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time?"
A: "They might have been."
Q: "The creation might have been going on for a very long time?"
A: "It might have continued for millions of years ..."

Notice that Bryan, a fundamentalist, did not believe a literal interpretation of Genesis included literal 24-hour days. That was a new idea then, and the modern doctrine of YE creationism had not spread to most Christians.

 

[turnorburn]

Like i said i don't know any Christians that believe in evolution..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Hint: repeating the claim without evidence of such fossils won't help you.

Isn't that what you do?

No. I'll show you why, with the example you brought up:

I pointed out that ants can't live without protozoans in their guts to digest cellulose for them, and that the protozoans can't live without the ants.

I think you meant "termites." We were talking about termites.

I asked how evolution could explain that and your answer was basically "they evolved to depend on each other".

And I cited an example where such a thing was directly observed to evolve. Which is one reason we know it happened. The other reason I cited was genetic and anatomical data showing that termites evolved from wood roaches, many of which have the same sort of bacterial endosymbionts.

In other words, you just restated your position.

And showed you some of the evidence for it. Would you like to see some more?

Why is that valid when you do it, but not when others do it?

I've repeatedly requested that you do it. But I'm pretty sure that you don't have any evidence to show us, now that you've declined several times.

Besides, I did more than just restate my opinion. I offered a source that mentioned particular places where these fossils had been found.

Sorry, all a quote will tell us (assuming it's not edited or otherwise altered) is what someone thought. You're going to need evidence, not quotes.

Your only answer to that seems to be that the man who said it was a racist.

If a man is so ignorant of biology as to believe that blacks are less intelligent and spiritual than other people because of genetics, he's certainly incompetent to talk about it. There is the issue as to how one of the most important creationist leaders could produce such a shocking bit of racism in the 1990s, and get no criticism at all from his fellow creationists. But we'll let that one go for now. Suffice to say that it showed the depths of Morris' ignorance with regard to evolution.

How do you like that? The Preservation of Favoured Races. Looks like Darwin was a racist.

You were misled on that. "Races" was the 19th century word that applied to different groups of animals. Darwin wrote nothing at all of human evolution in that book.

Charles Darwin said:
Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.

Darwin, like most of his contemporaries, thought some races were inferior. So did Abraham Lincoln. Where Lincoln and Darwin differed with most creationists of the time was in arguing that all humans were entitled to freedom, dignity and the fruits of their own labor.

Of course, evolutionary theory now shows that there are no biological human races. So if a modern scientist would say something racist, he'd likely have ruined his career. On the other hand, you see that a leader of creationists could, just a decade ago, write that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior, with no consequences. This is another important difference between creationism and science.

His book, on The Origin of Species was used by the Nazis to justify their idea of a master race.

No. In fact, many Darwinists showed that the Nazi ideas of race were scientifically unsupportable. Punnett and Morgan, for two examples, shot holes in the Nazi ideology, using Darwinian theory.

Darwin himself, in The Descent of Man, wrote that even allowing the weak among humans to die was an "overwhelming evil." I'm aware that you almost certainly didn't read the book and are just copying quotes, but you might want to take the time to read it to confirm that I'm telling you the truth. You see, I actually did read it.

Does that invalidate all his works?

It invalidates many of his ideas of human populations. Those ideas are not part of modern evolutionary theory. However, as you see, you've been completely misinformed of Darwin's ideas about race.

It would seem, according to the logic of some here, that it does. If a man doesn't pay his taxes, then he can't know anything about evolution.

So far, all I've seen here, is people arguing that if a man will lie under oath, he'll probably lie on other occasions as well. Perhaps you should read some of those posts again.

If a man is a racist, then he can't know anything bout evolution.

In the latter half of the 20th century, if a man still thinks there are biological human races, and that some races are genetically inferior to others, then he's too much of an ignoramus to speak about any topic in biology.

According to that logic, I don't see any reason to pay attention to what Darwin said about evolution.

I don't think that excuse is going to work.

It's not as if the guy had any real education in biology or any related subject.

His work on cirripedes is still a useful reference in invert biology. And his four basic points of natural selection remain as true and tested as ever. And of course, his contribution to geology in solving the mystery of Pacific atolls shows he was more than a great biologist.

His fellow scientists recognized his greatness by electing him a Fellow of the Royal Society, the highest honor accorded to a scientist in Great Britain. Apparently, they had a different estimation of his education.

 

[Barbarian]

Like i said i don't know any Christians that believe in evolution..

Maybe you need to spend some more time with Christians.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

The habit of men, to add new doctrines like creationism, to our faith is a very harmful one.

What faith might that be..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I was assuming you're a Christian, too. I should have said "Christian faith."

 

[turnorburn]

I'm a Christian its just that i don't know any Christians that believe in the doctrine of evolution.

tob

 

[jasoncran]

I'm a Christian its just that i don't know any Christians that believe in the doctrine of evolution.

tob

I have met them. just because you go to church and the pastor preaches against the idea toe doesn't meant those in the church fully agree with that. nor just because a pastor believes in a futurism means that all that listen agree. i fall in this later category.

 

[Barbarian]

The vast majority of the worlds Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.

That doesn't mean creationists can't be Christians. It only means that creationism is not what most Christians believe. Only if creationism becomes more important to one than being one with His believers will it remove one from Him.

 

[TOG]

If a man is so ignorant of biology as to believe that blacks are less intelligent and spiritual than other people because of genetics, he's certainly incompetent to talk about it.

Darwin, like most of his contemporaries, thought some races were inferior.

Thank you.

The TOG​

 

[turnorburn]

And just because a person says their a Christian doesn't mean their a Christian..

tob

 

[jasoncran]

And just because a person says their a Christian doesn't mean their a Christian..

tob

some would say old earth creationists aren't Christians too. yet my brother is one. is belief in the bible as it said in context required for salvation? ie if one believes jesus died on the cross, believed that god created man via natural or supernatural means and has given men laws to which we all need jesus. what is the difference?

im not into te either but Im not going to call them not a brother. besides the often quoted William lane craig for his debating against atheism isn't a creationist either but a theistic evolutionist.to me I think gap theory,futurism is just as bad.

 

[TOG]

The Bible doesn't say "Believe in a literal 6-day creation, and thou shallt be saved". It's not a salvation issue. But the first chapter of Genesis is more than just an explanation of where we came from. I could (and have) give a whole Bible study on just that one chapter, but I'll be brief here. In many other religions, the creation story starts by explaining where the various gods came from. The Bible doesn't try to explain that, but assumes from the first verse that He has always existed. Unlike many Pagan religions, where the gods are part of creation and are in many cases created by the earth or something else, the Bible says that God created everything. It is that fact that gives Him His authority over creation. It is the fact that He is the creator that gives Him the authority to give us moral laws to live by. It is the fact that He created us that gives Him the right to determine what sin is, what it's consequences are and how we can receive forgiveness. If we take God out of the creation account and replace him with naturalistic processes, we take away the source of His authority. If God is not the creator, then what gives him authority over us? The fact that He's so powerful He could wipe out the entire world with a snap of his fingers? If that's the case, then God is nothing more than the universe's biggest bully. But that's not the God I serve. I serve a creator who loves and cares for His creation.

The TOG​

 

[jasoncran]

The Bible doesn't say "Believe in a literal 6-day creation, and thou shallt be saved". It's not a salvation issue. But the first chapter of Genesis is more than just an explanation of where we came from. I could (and have) give a whole Bible study on just that one chapter, but I'll be brief here. In many other religions, the creation story starts by explaining where the various gods came from. The Bible doesn't try to explain that, but assumes from the first verse that He has always existed. Unlike many Pagan religions, where the gods are part of creation and are in many cases created by the earth or something else, the Bible says that God created everything. It is that fact that gives Him His authority over creation. It is the fact that He is the creator that gives Him the authority to give us moral laws to live by. It is the fact that He created us that gives Him the right to determine what sin is, what it's consequences are and how we can receive forgiveness. If we take God out of the creation account and replace him with naturalistic processes, we take away the source of His authority. If God is not the creator, then what gives him authority over us? The fact that He's so powerful He could wipe out the entire world with a snap of his fingers? If that's the case, then God is nothing more than the universe's biggest bully. But that's not the God I serve. I serve a creator who loves and cares for His creation.

The TOG​

genesis wasn't written for a debate of evolution or creationism. it was to the nation of isreal and a recap/commentary by moses given to the children of isreal.