[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Cygnus]

Meyers is just another flubadub who thinks evolution is about the origin of life.

That isn't what the video was about....if you watched the video you would have known that.

 

[Cygnus]

Sorry, nothing therein says that the sky is a solid dome with holes in it to let out the water stored above it. If you think there's something in the video that supports your beliefs, how about telling us what it is?

BTW, light-years are a major issue for creationists who want to say "light went faster in those days." You see, the speed of light is a constant that is tied to a lot of other things, like radioactive breakdown. If the speed of light was significantly greater in earlier times, the increased radiation from the Earth would have fried all living things.

Rock and a hard place.

Once again your reply shows you didn't watch the video.

 

[Barbarian]

Feel free to tell us what you think it says that has anything to do with the creationist idea that the sky is a dome with windows to let water come through.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that Meyers is just another goof who thinks evolution is about the origin of life.

That isn't what the video was about....if you watched the video you would have known that.

Feel free to tell us what it says to support his ideas.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Calling Meyers names doesn't help your case.

 

[Barbarian]

Calling Meyers names doesn't help your case.

He's really got no excuse. But as I said, those guys need to settle on one story, and stop contradicting each other. If they want to revive "intelligent design", they should at least come to an agreement on what it means.

And no, "just watch the video" isn't a good way to get started.

 

[Papa Zoom]

He's really got no excuse. But as I said, those guys need to settle on one story, and stop contradicting each other. If they want to revive "intelligent design", they should at least come to an agreement on what it means.

And no, "just watch the video" isn't a good way to get started.

Just admit that calling names isn't an argument. Then go sit in the corner for 1/2 hour.

 

[OzSpen]

The first example of your links I checked:
To explain; quite often, animals have similar organs or structures which, in the thinking of evolutionists, cannot be explained by common ancestry. A good example is the ‘camera-eye’ which has a lens and retina, a design found in both humans and octopuses (see fig. 5). Since humans and octopuses are not thought to have inherited their eyes from a common ancestor, these are not regarded as homologous. Instead, evolutionists would refer to them as an example of homoplasy. This is also known as ‘convergent evolution’ because it is understood that the evolutionary process has ‘converged’ upon the same design independently.

The obvious evolution of cephalopod eyes is demonstrated in numerous transitional forms still existing in living mollusks. The most important demonstration of homoplasy is quite simple; the retina in vertebrate eyes develops from the endoderm and that of cephalopods develops from mesodern.

So what? so our retinas are actually extensions of brain tissue. And thereby, they are "backwards" compared to cephalopods. The sensory cells are facing backwards in vertebrates, which means the light has to filter through layers of cells to get to the sensors. In cephalopods, the retina is "right side out" and the sensors face forward.

These structures as you now see, are analogous, not homologous.

This is very basic introductory comparative anatomy. How is it your author didn't realize this?

I'm still waiting for your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 with God's evolutionary explanation of how he created the world through evolution.

Please give it to us in clear terms of the evolutionary tree in Gen 1-2.

I'm waiting!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

He's really got no excuse. But as I said, those guys need to settle on one story, and stop contradicting each other. If they want to revive "intelligent design", they should at least come to an agreement on what it means.

And no, "just watch the video" isn't a good way to get started.

You should send the same message to scientist, Michael Denton, whose view of the theory of evolution is contradicting many other scientists.

Don't you understand the nature of a forum where various views are expressed to be agreed with, contradicted, or even a 'maybe' or two?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

In fact, as you should have known, the notion of eugenics touted by the Nazis were denounced by Darwin as "an overwhelming evil." More importantly, Darwinians like Punnet and Morgan demonstrated that Nazi racial ideas were scientifically insupportable and were shown to be so by Darwinian theory.

Nevertheless, Hitler and the Nazis used the Darwinian eugenics model to exterminate 6 million Jews.

Ideas have consequences!

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

I'm still waiting for your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 with God's evolutionary explanation of how he created the world through evolution.

Could you show us his chemical explanation as to how He created the world through the interaction of electrons? I think you're expecting the Bible to be a science text when it's really about God and man and our relationship.

If you accept His word as it is, then you won't have to validate science by trying to find it in scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Denton is an evolutionist. He specifically says so. He just thinks a creator set the universe up so as to make evolution happen. Which is true enough; if he'd just accept that the Creator is the God of Abraham, he'd be spot on.

As an evolutionist who knows the theory of evolution well, biologist Dr Michael Denton's conclusion is that evolution is a theory in crisis.

He has documented his reasons in 2 landmark volumes, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis that have shaken the scientific evolutionary establishment to its foundations. You can see the defensiveness of the establishment in their reviews of Denton's work.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

Nevertheless, Hitler and the Nazis used the Darwinian eugenics model to exterminate 6 million Jews.

No. As you learned, Darwinians like Morgan and Punnett showed that the Nazi racial beliefs were not only contrary to evolutionary theory, but also scientifically insupportable.

However, most of the "final solution" can be found in Martin Luther's proposals in his "The Jews and their Lies."

But notwithstanding more benevolent attitudes, the evil genie was out of the bottle and Luther's hate-filled book was destined to play out its ominous role in the development of anti-Semitism in continental Europe. If the immediate effect of Luther's anti-Jewish attitude was the paralysis for two hundred years of Protestant attempts to evangelise Jews in Germany, his longer term legacy was to bequeath to Germany a toxic influence which conditioned a generation either to support the Nazis or, in a miasma of apathy, to abdicate responsibility. At his Nuremberg trial, the notorious Nazi propagandist, Julius Streicher said in his defence that he was, after all, only repeating what Luther had said. Whilst for its part, the German nation, having been inclined for so long to the view that to disobey the State was to disobey God, shrugged off any sense of personal liability in the matter. Indeed, the most frequently heard defence plea in the courts that tried Nazi war criminals was the supine remark that "I was only following orders." Of course, there were those who cried behind the curtails when they came for the Jews, as there were those, like Bonhoeffer, who were courageously bent on intervention to remove Hitler and, if necessary, pay for it with their lives. But, if, as Martin Neimoller once admitted, Hitler's war required a moratorium on Christianity, then Luther's stance on church and state as well as on the Jews eased the difficulty and salved the conscience.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-legacy-of-shame-luther-and-the-jews.php


What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:


First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.


Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.


Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)


Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.


Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).


Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.


Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.
Martin Luther The Jews and Their Lies
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/martin-luther-quot-the-jews-and-their-lies-quot

Disturbing, isn't it? Now go and look up the Wannsee Protocols.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-wannsee-protocol

Streicher was telling the truth. Luther, not Darwin, was the inspiration for Hitler's "final solution."

This is not intended to tar all Lutherans with racism. Nor is it intended to deny Luther's very real devotion to God as he understood God to be. It is merely a grim reminder that all men have flaws. Luther's vicious antiSemitism exploded in the 1930s into the Holocaust.

Not Darwin, who objected to the very idea of selecting out the less fit, and whose followers pointed out that the Nazi ideas were foolish and unscientific.

 

[OzSpen]

Could you show us his chemical explanation as to how He created the world through the interaction of electrons? I think you're expecting the Bible to be a science text when it's really about God and man and our relationship.

If you accept His word as it is, then you won't have to validate science by trying to find it in scripture.

You're avoiding the issue with trowing the issue back on me. It was I would asked for your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 with God's evolutionary explanation of how he created the world through evolution.

I'm still waiting.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

As an evolutionist who knows the theory of evolution well, biologist Dr Michael Denton's conclusion is that evolution is a theory in crisis.

He says this:
it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Denton is an evolutionist. He specifically says so. He just thinks a creator set the universe up so as to make evolution happen. Which is true enough; if he'd just accept that the Creator is the God of Abraham, he'd be spot on.

If that's a "crisis" it's one that an evolutionist could be happy to have.

 

[Barbarian]

You're avoiding the issue with trowing the issue back on me.

I'm pointing out the foolishness of trying to make the Bible into a science text. That's not what it's about. If Genesis says nothing about ring and cage molecules, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It merely means that the details of creation are not the point of Genesis.
Let God be God and listen to what He wants to tell you, not what you wish He would say.

 

[OzSpen]

No. As you learned, Darwinians like Morgan and Punnett showed that the Nazi racial beliefs were not only contrary to evolutionary theory, but also scientifically insupportable.

I've shown you researched evidence (links) that demonstrate the evolutionary reasons given by Hitler and the Nazis for the Holocaust. It's too late to deny the Nazi eugenics and its link to Darwinian evolution.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

I've shown you researched evidence (links) that demonstrate the evolutionary reasons given by Hitler and the Nazis.

Hitler's henchmen had a lot of foolish misconceptions about science. Their ideas of evolution were debunked by Darwinian scientists in the 1930s. Didn't matter. They clung to their own misconceptions, much as Luther clung to the idea that God wanted Christians to enslave and imprison Jews.

It's too late to deny the Nazi eugenics and its link to Darwinian evolution.

I've already shown you how Darwinian scientists demonstrated that the Nazi ideas of eugenics were contrary to Darwinian evolution, and scientifically unsupportable, in much the same way that Luther's vengeful plan for the Jews is contrary to Christian belief.

Neither science nor Christianity are at fault in these issues. Just people looking for any reason to justify their evil intent.

 

[OzSpen]

I think St. Augustine is right. Our universe was created in an instant and developed from there as God intended it to do. Every tiny aspect of the physical universe is under God's purview, and if He took His mind from us, we would not even continue to exist.

He makes the universe consistent and predictable because that is the sort of universe in which we could become and live.

I asked for your views of how God created the universe by evolution and what do you give me? Augustine's view.

I give up trying to get you to answer what I wrote.

Oz

 

[Barbarian]

I asked for your views of how God created the universe by evolution

That's your notion. If your particular belief is that God created the universe by evolution, then it's up to you to support it. My thought is that St. Augustine is correct, and the universe was created in an instant, and then developed from there. But evolution wasn't even part of it, until the first living things.

and what do you give me? Augustine's view.

I think he had it right.

I give up trying to get you to answer what I wrote.

You seem to be a reasonably bright guy. Do you really think that evolutionary theory says that the universe was created by evolution?
Seriously?