Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Rollo Tamasi]

Let's see...
I'm made in God's image....
Are you saying that God is a great ape?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Let's see...
I'm made in God's image....
Are you saying that God is a great ape?

Are you saying you are a cat? Honestly, what I'm saying is genetically and anatomically we are part of the great apes and hominid line. Saying you're made in image of god may sound like a fun catch phrase, but it doesn't make the facts that humans share most of our DNA with chimps. We also share a lot of social and anatomical similarities with other great apes.

This also doesn't even address why its good or bad of why there is a relation. It shouldn't even matter if we are related. Whether or not you are related to monkies and descended from old world monkeys doesn't change anything.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Are you saying you are a cat? Honestly, what I'm saying is genetically and anatomically we are part of the great apes and hominid line. Saying you're made in image of god may sound like a fun catch phrase, but it doesn't make the facts that humans share most of our DNA with chimps. We also share a lot of social and anatomical similarities with other great apes.

This also doesn't even address why its good or bad of why there is a relation. It shouldn't even matter if we are related. Whether or not you are related to monkies and descended from old world monkeys doesn't change anything.

You calling me a great ape does change things.
You are taking your opinion of the science of evolution and calling it fact.
And when those facts change, as they always do, you will ignore you were wrong and continue with your worldly beliefs.
This is a christian forum, and coming on here and calling christians great apes is out of order.
You should reconsider how you address people around here or I will have to take the appropriate action against you.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see...
I'm made in God's image....
Are you saying that God is a great ape?

Are you saying that God has toenails, and nostrils, and ears? Scripture says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. The "image" is not your physical body, but rather in your mind and soul. God is not a physical entity.

You are taking your opinion of the science of evolution and calling it fact.

It is a fact. He's quite correct. Indeed, you would be unable to show anything physical in humans that is not present to some degree in other apes.

And when those facts change, as they always do, you will ignore you were wrong and continue with your worldly beliefs.

Science requires that one be willing to drop any theory in favor of one that better describes reality. But it's very unlikely, given the mass of evidence, that we'd be reclassified into some other group.

This is a christian forum, and coming on here and calling christians great apes is out of order.

Our bodies are those of great apes. Our souls are given directly by God. Are you your body or your soul?

You should reconsider how you address people around here or I will have to take the appropriate action against you.

It won't do much good to rail against reality.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Okay, I don't want to derail your thread here.
So I'll just leave you with your belief that we are all monkeys and let you have your fun.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You calling me a great ape does change things.

How exactly?

You are taking your opinion of the science of evolution and calling it fact.

Its not my opinion. Its about 150+ years of observation and recording. Hardly opinion.

And when those facts change, as they always do, you will ignore you were wrong and continue with your worldly beliefs.

Consideirng you didn't mention any changed fact, I don't think you really understand the current understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

This is a christian forum, and coming on here and calling christians great apes is out of order.

Its not out of order, considering that is exactly how humans are classified by phylogeny. Its not derogatory.

You should reconsider how you address people around here or I will have to take the appropriate action against you.

Well, I could technically report you because its against the tos to threaten other posters publically. However, I'm adult that doesn't have to use underhanded tactics and threats to harass people on the internet.

 

[duari91]

Are you saying that God has toenails, and nostrils, and ears? Scripture says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. The "image" is not your physical body, but rather in your mind and soul. God is not a physical entity.



It is a fact. He's quite correct. Indeed, you would be unable to show anything physical in humans that is not present to some degree in other apes.



Science requires that one be willing to drop any theory in favor of one that better describes reality. But it's very unlikely, given the mass of evidence, that we'd be reclassified into some other group.



Our bodies are those of great apes. Our souls are given directly by God. Are you your body or your soul?



It won't do much good to rail against reality.

You said it was a fact, and then concede that it is possible for the theory to change (just unlikely).

Don't confuse your interpretation of the data as fact. Maybe try to be more objective, and not so blatantly ignorant?

Scratch that, ignorance is bliss! Isn't it?!

Again, I am not surprised. Your posts seem to be consistent of your character. Disappointed to say the least, especially since you are an "expert." We all understand how you see the data, but the logical fallacies aren't fooling anyone.

Bad Barbarian! Bad! Just keeping you honest my friend. ;)

 

[jeff77]

I think many Christians have the impression that evolution is used by non Christian scientist and atheist to prove that there is no God. So they automatically think that big bang=no God and with God=no evolution/big bang. I personally get this impression from scientist and atheist I read or hear about but I have no idea if this represents the majority. Personally I just believe in creation. I don't know enough about evolution to know if I believe it or not. I would like to hear a non evolutionist explain if there is any scripture that contradicts what evolution says about the way God created us.

 

[duari91]

I think many Christians have the impression that evolution is used by non Christian scientist and atheist to prove that there is no God. So they automatically think that big bang=no God and with God=no evolution/big bang. I personally get this impression from scientist and atheist I read or hear about but I have no idea if this represents the majority. Personally I just believe in creation. I don't know enough about evolution to know if I believe it or not. I would like to hear a non evolutionist explain if there is any scripture that contradicts what evolution says about the way God created us.

Are you sure that's what you want? There is plenty of scripture that supports creation. The debate isn't much about the scripture, but the words that compose them. People either argue that certain passages are metaphorical (like the 6 day creation account), or that the translation is wrong (just how people say "day" should be a period of time). There are many passages someone could use, but here is two of them.

Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"

Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

It takes a little bit of imagination and a moving of words to take the passages differently. I agree with you, it is my personal belief that the bible supports creation, but I respect the other beliefs as well.

 

[Barbarian]

You said it was a fact,

Directly observed. Can't get much more factual than that.

and then concede that it is possible for the theory to change (just unlikely).

Yep. You've confused the observed phenomenon with the theory that explains it. Huge difference there.

Don't confuse your interpretation of the data as fact.

See above. There is a difference between a phenomenon and the theory that explains it. This is a tough thing for some to understand, if they aren't familiar with science.

Maybe try to be more objective, and not so blatantly ignorant?

Funny how we never realize it applies to us, isn't it?

Scratch that, ignorance is bliss! Isn't it?!

Less so, if you know you're ignorant.

Again, I am not surprised. Your posts seem to be consistent of your character.

Well, thank you.

Disappointed to say the least, especially since you are an "expert."

I don't remember describing myself as an expert. I'm reluctant to conclude you faked it; but perhaps you can show that I did. If so, now would be a good time for you to do that.

We all understand how you see the data, but the logical fallacies aren't fooling anyone.

For the same reason orange leprechauns don't fool anyone. Unless you can find one of those "logical fallacies" for us.

Just keeping you honest my friend. ;)

Funny you should say that. Show us those things, if you would.

 

[Barbarian]

Are you sure that's what you want? There is plenty of scripture that supports creation.

Even creationists accept creation. They just don't approve of the way God did it.

The debate isn't much about the scripture, but the words that compose them. People either argue that certain passages are metaphorical (like the 6 day creation account),

There's that problem with mornings and evenings, with no sun to have them. Pretty much rules out any literal meaning for "yom" (sometimes meaning "days", sometimes meaning "eons", sometimes meaning "when I was younger" , and so on.

There are many passages someone could use, but here is two of them.

Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"

I don't see how that rules out God's creation. Evolution does not rule out common ancestry of humans. And as God makes clear in Genesis, the "death" is spiritual, not physical.

Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Notice that from the beginning of the creation of the Earth, neither male nor female were present, according to God. But of course from the beginning of the creation of mankind, there were male and female.

It takes a little bit of imagination and a moving of words to take the passages differently.

Hence the creationist reworking of God's word in the examples above, to make them more acceptable.

 

[duari91]

Directly observed. Can't get much more factual than that.



Yep. You've confused the observed phenomenon with the theory that explains it. Huge difference there.



See above. There is a difference between a phenomenon and the theory that explains it. This is a tough thing for some to understand, if they aren't familiar with science.



Funny how we never realize it applies to us, isn't it?



Less so, if you know you're ignorant.



Well, thank you.



I don't remember describing myself as an expert. I'm reluctant to conclude you faked it; but perhaps you can show that I did. If so, now would be a good time for you to do that.



For the same reason orange leprechauns don't fool anyone. Unless you can find one of those "logical fallacies" for us.



Funny you should say that. Show us those things, if you would.

-I think you don't quite understand the point I made. I was pointing the distinction between fact, and the interpretation of the fact. Citing that you found it possible that the interpretation can change. That's all I needed to see.

-Even worse, a complete denial of ignorance.

-Not sure if that is something to be thankful for?

-Slander is a serious thing. I am not sure what exactly is fake (looking back I never said you were one), but that is a serious statement to make(and not a very smart one to make). You went from alluding to a 40 year 'expert' tone, to an appeal to ignorance. I don't know, maybe I could come up with a graph to illustrate that to you?

Look up Argumentum ad populum, you may stand to learn somethin'. Would you like me to quote your ad hominem attacks on Dr.Hovind? Or did I clear it up for everyone?

 

[duari91]

Even creationists accept creation. They just don't approve of the way God did it.



There's that problem with mornings and evenings, with no sun to have them. Pretty much rules out any literal meaning for "yom" (sometimes meaning "days", sometimes meaning "eons", sometimes meaning "when I was younger" , and so on.



Romans 5:12 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—"

I don't see how that rules out God's creation. Evolution does not rule out common ancestry of humans. And as God makes clear in Genesis, the "death" is spiritual, not physical.

Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Notice that from the beginning of the creation of the Earth, neither male nor female were present, according to God. But of course from the beginning of the creation of mankind, there were male and female.



Hence the creationist reworking of God's word in the examples above, to make them more acceptable.

My God is powerful enough to preserve the word to be read and understood. Anyone without knowledge of creation/evolution would conclude that God created the world in 6 literal days by reading the bible. You shouldn't have to jump hoops to get the meaning of it. Like I said, I respect the beliefs of people who think otherwise.

@Romans - Evolution makes a claim to death, and the productive changes within a species to create something new. A clear contradiction with this verse actually. Can't have Evolution without death. You shouldn't have to twist the passage THAT much.

@Mark - Strange, I actually notice that Adam came before Eve, but both of them still existed in the "beginning." What passage states that there was a primitive "man" before Adam?

 

[Barbarian]

-I think you don't quite understand the point I made.

I see what you were trying to say. You were equivocating the phenomenon of evolution with the theory that explains it.

I was pointing the distinction between fact, and the interpretation of the fact.

No. You had them confused. Evolution is an observable fact. Evolutionary theory is the way we explain how it works.

Citing that you found it possible that the interpretation can change.

No. I told you that it could. Did you not read it? I told you:
Science requires that one be willing to drop any theory in favor of one that better describes reality.

I don't think there's a way to make it any easier to understand.

That's all I needed to see.

If you had seen it, you wouldn't have denied that I said it.

-Even worse, a complete denial of ignorance.

You seem to be changing the story as you go. I merely pointed out that ignorance is less harmful if one realizes one's ignorance.

Slander is a serious thing.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure you just aren't reading me very carefully. I said I'd be reluctant to conclude your mischaracterizations are intentional. However, I noted that you declined to show me that I said those things.

I am not sure what exactly is fake (looking back I never said you were one), but that is a serious statement to make(and not a very smart one to make).

Of course, I never said I was an expert. It was a bad idea to say otherwise.

You went from alluding to a 40 year 'expert' tone,

Never said it, just "alluded", now is it?

to an appeal to ignorance.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything nice about ignorance...(Barbarian checks) No, it was you, wasn't it?

I don't know, maybe I could come up with a graph to illustrate that to you?

Maybe if you'd just read more carefully, it would go better for you.

Look up Argumentum ad populum, you may stand to learn somethin'.

I was claiming evolutionary theory is correct, because most people believe it? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Didn't say that, either. You seem to be arguing with yourself, mostly.

Would you like me to quote your ad hominem attacks on Dr.Hovind?

If a man is presented as a reliable person, the fact that he was caught lying is relevant to the discussion. If someone presents a man as qualified to speak on a subject, his experience and credentials become an issue. That's how it works.

Or did I clear it up for everyone?

I think you have, although possibly not the way you were expecting to do it.

 

[Barbarian]

My God is powerful enough to preserve the word to be read and understood. Anyone without knowledge of creation/evolution would conclude that God created the world in 6 literal days by reading the bible.

St. Augustine, without knowledge of either modern science or creationism, (neither of which existed for another seven hundred years after his death) pointed out that one could not make Genesis into a literal history without logical absurdity.

You shouldn't have to jump hoops to get the meaning of it. Like I said, I respect the beliefs of people who think otherwise.

You won't go to hell for being a creationist. But creationism is a great atheist-maker. So, it's not a harmless misunderstanding.

@Romans - Evolution makes a claim to death, and the productive changes within a species to create something new. A clear contradiction with this verse actually.

Not at all. You'll have to explain how you could go from scripture to where you are.

Mark - Strange, I actually notice that Adam came before Eve, but both of them still existed in the "beginning." What passage states that there was a primitive "man" before Adam?

Actually, they don't. God says...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

No male, no female. Not at the beginning of life, either. In one of the two different accounts in Genesis, living things are created, and then man. In the other, man is created, then other living things, and then woman.

Read it for yourself. It's not what you think it is.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

But creationism is a great atheist-maker

Creationists believe by faith Gods word says it is impossible to please him without faith so how do you figure its a great atheist maker that's in direct contradiction of Gods word..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Creationists believe by faith Gods word says it is impossible to please him without faith

Not all creationists. Some of them accept all of scripture in that regard. God says that we are justified by faith and works. Jesus says that what we do for the unfortunate will determine whether we spend eternity with Him or with the devil, and there are many creationists who accept His word on this.

Unfortunately, most of them are unwilling to let go of their man-made doctrine of "life ex nihilo." And if one are raised to believe that is God's word, then when one learns it is false, one is in danger of losing Christian faith entirely.

so how do you figure its a great atheist maker

Observation. And the testimony of atheists, and those who came very close to becoming atheists.

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. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Glenn Morton
http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

that's in direct contradiction of Gods word..

And also in direct contradiction to the "invisible things, clearly seen":
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

His creation is also a revelation to us, and if they seem to contradict each other, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them.

 

[turnorburn]

i guess it all depends on who you put your faith in doesn't it..

tob

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Barbarian said:

Creationists believe by faith Gods word says it is impossible to please him without faith so how do you figure its a great atheist maker that's in direct contradiction of Gods word..

tob

Do you know how many atheists are driven day by day to fuel their resolve to resist God? By quoting these ridiculous creationist organizations, and having their scientists destroy these men in debates. It only solidifies their unbelief, and when people like you try and make it a primary issue (rather than the secondary issue that it is), then it creates a huge barrier to the gospel.

 

[Barbarian]

i guess it all depends on who you put your faith in doesn't it..

You can put your faith in God, and His word that He created life through nature, or you can believe man's doctrine of "life ex nihilo." I'll go with God. YE creationists go with man.

One of the important differences between YE and the Bible.