[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Jack Spratt]

"Most Christians aren't creationists."

I strongly suggest that this statement is false. Every Christian, believer, whatever that I know is a creationist. I know none, not one, personally that believes in evolution or the seeding of a human race by aliens. (which is what a large percentage of the elite scientists are now touting as the explanation of our existence.)

 

[Barbarian]

I wouldn't call evolution a religion. It's almost anti religion.

It's a natural phenomenon. There are several theories to explain it. The Modern Synthesis, including natural selection and genetics, is the one scientists currently accept.

It says nobody created us, we just happened by chance , there is no creator and therefore there is nobody to be accountable to.

Nope. Nothing at all like that in evolutionary theory. As Everette Dirksen remarked, people are down on things they aren't up on. That's curable. Go take a look for yourself. Hint; don't ask Fidel Castro to explain capitalism to you.

Currently, many biologists in the field of evolutionary theory are committed theists, most of them Christians. Would you like to learn about the way Christians see evoution?
http://biologos.org/

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Most Christians aren't creationists.

I strongly suggest that this statement is false.

Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics. They accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation. The next largest group are the Eastern Orthodox, which have similar doctrinal statements accepting evolution. Next are Anglicans, which also have such statements. And many Protestant denominations also accept that evolution is consistent with Him.

So yes, it's pretty much overwhelming.

Every Christian, believer, whatever that I know is a creationist. I know none, not one, personally that believes in evolution or the seeding of a human race by aliens. (which is what a large percentage of the elite scientists are now touting as the explanation of our existence.)

Interesting. Show us your data on that. Sounds pretty far-fetched, but I'd be open to some checkable evidence.

 

[Jack Spratt]

1. Humanity is no longer uniquely created in the image of God, which means we no longer have innate dignity and value as distinct from the rest of creation.
2. Humanity is no longer created to reign over the rest of creation.
3. Adam and Eve are no longer historical people. Therefore the doctrine of man's sinful nature inherited from Adam is abolished, since there was no single progenitor from which to inherit a sin-nature. Were Jesus and the apostles mistaken when they spoke of Adam and Eve as real historical individuals - esp. Paul who bases his entire thesis of salvation on Adam's fault in Romans 5?
4. Genesis must be considered mythological or semi-mythological rather than being regarded as a historical narrative.
5. Theistic evolution generally limits or eliminates God's providential intervention in the creation that he "set in motion".
6. Genesis 2:7 in describing the creation of Adam seems to require an intellectual stretch to understand as describing simpler species evolving into humans.

Found these problems with evolution and the Bible. Though they would be interesting to some here.

 

[Jack Spratt]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3
​

 

[Jack Spratt]

As far as I am concerned and in my opinion... the rise of the apostate church is the one that adopts Darwin's farce as truth.

 

[Barbarian]

As far as I am concerned and in my opinion... the rise of the apostate church is the one that adopts Darwin's farce as truth.

Christians haven't changed. The Adventists changed. There isn't any way to change that. Let God do it His way; that's the way to resolve this dilemma for you.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I wouldn't call evolution a religion. It's almost anti religion.

Are you talking about the umbrella term " evolution" as used by some activists, or are you talking about the Theory of Evolution?

It says nobody created us, we just happened by chance, there is no creator and therefore there is nobody to be accountable to.

No, the theory of Evolution is only a model that states that organisms adapt to their environment through selection pressures. Even diverging into new categories when pressures divide organisms. It has nothing to say about whether or not their was a creator or accountability.

As soon as there is a creator then there must be someone very powerful, a purpose for our life and some one to answer to for our actions.

As opposed to just happening by chance. A chance beginning and a end of everything after death. Random happenings in the universe and no hope for anything other than happenstance. No religion but total absence of any accountability for our actions or choices. Free but totally at the mercy of what ever flies through the cosmos and crashes into us, what ever storm builds up and sweeps us away, any earth quake or tsunami that shakes and drowns entire countrysides. No body to worship, nobody to pray to for protection, NO HOPE for everlasting life.

This is all irrelevant to whether the Theory of Evolution is true or not. You can apply this same train of logic to the theory of Gravity. There are several passages in the Bible that state that the earth stopped moving or the sun/ moon stopped in the sky. According to the theory of Gravity, if this happens the earth would plummet straight into the Sun, or the moon would come crashing down on us. Or the entire order of how everything in a solar system rotates. Yet there isn't much controversy when it comes to gravity.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism,

No one actually accepts Evolutionism, except in the rare cases where its tongue in cheek. Evolutionist is a made up term from creation activists. There isn't even a set definition on what Evolutionism even is. I've seen it range from extremely anti religious ideals, to just accepting that genes exist as a concept. There are scientists that accept the theory of Evolution. However the theory of Evolution is not a philosophical world view anymore than Germ theory or the Laws of thermo Dynamics. They are just tools. People can take models and tools and use them to bolster philosophical world views, but they aren't ones in themselves.

many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible.

Unless these people actually come up with models that explains all the data that the theory of Evolution does, and can survive past peer review, their assertion that the theory of Evoltuion is wrong, doesn't hold much weight.

In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

Well, considering that Evolutionism is a made up ideology that has no set definition, and that the theory of Evolution mostly just unifies Biology. The thing is the grand majority of people in Biology, Bio Chemistry, Eccology, and Geneology accept the theory of Evoltuion. Mainly because its dirrectly part of their field of study. I've seen geologists that don't except the theory, I've seen Chemists and physicists, however these rarely have any impact on the theory, so its understandable that not all of these people would except Evoltuion. It doesn't impact their work.

"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2

The thing is, anyone can write a book, not just anyone can publish a research paper in a journal. Mainly because journals will fact check the research, scientists in the field will test your assertions. Also, have you read these books yourself? Could it be possible that these books are pro evolution, but are critical of certain aspects being investigated now? Do you understand what I'm saying?

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3
​

Are they biologists? That is very important because, that is the field that Evolution actually impacts. This is similar to a pizza franchise stating that customers don't want ice cream. They may be food providers, but plenty of people working in the Ice cream biz would point out that they get plenty of business.

 

[Jack Spratt]

OK, so, let me put it in a nutshell.

I believe that God created the whole universe in six literal days and rested on the seventh.
I believe that He created each animal, bird, fish, plant, in there own kind and man in His image...no morphing, changing, moving from ammiba to jellyfish, to fish to salamander to dog or what ever.
I believe He made Eve from Adam's rib... throw out the "we came from apes". (why would He write this if we morphed from apes. There would of had to be females already.. no need for Eve)
I believe all of this due to the writing of the Holy God breathed scriptures, the book of Enoch, the book of Jasher, and the Jubiliee. The last three are not scripture, not canonized, but parallel the God breathed Holy Bible in a way that is uncanny and are therefore relevant as any reference text. Just not scripture.
I believe that the "theory" of evolution takes more faith to believe than creation and fly's in the face of our Creator, the theory was created in the mind of Satan to divert the human race away from it's true creator, who created us with a intentional design, purpose and love, not as some random spontaneous happening in a puddle of "primordial soup".
I believe that God is the only reason that the neutron is attached to the proton in the nucleus of every atom in the universe and without that force, nothing would exist. Everything would evaporate in an unmeasurable small amount of time.


My God, Lord and Savior is large enough and all powerful enough to create all of this, in the time stated in the scriptures, and is still guiding and maintaining all of the laws of Physics, and all His universal laws and does it with one hand behind His back.

I am shocked and amazed at the number of professing "Christians" who have obviously accepted the gospel, Christ's sinless life, death on a cross, descent to hell, ascent and resurrection and transfiguration accepted Him as their savior. However, fall for the lies of Satan as to the creation of our universe.

 

[Milk-Drops]

OK, so, let me put it in a nutshell.

I believe that God created the whole universe in six literal days and rested on the seventh.
I believe that He created each animal, bird, fish, plant, in there own kind and man in His image...no morphing, changing, moving from ammiba to jellyfish, to fish to salamander to dog or what ever.
I believe He made Eve from Adam's rib... throw out the "we came from apes". (why would He write this if we morphed from apes. There would of had to be females already.. no need for Eve)
I believe all of this due to the writing of the Holy God breathed scriptures, the book of Enoch, the book of Jasher, and the Jubiliee. The last three are not scripture, not canonized, but parallel the God breathed Holy Bible in a way that is uncanny and are therefore relevant as any reference text. Just not scripture.
I believe that the "theory" of evolution takes more faith to believe than creation and fly's in the face of our Creator, the theory was created in the mind of Satan to divert the human race away from it's true creator, who created us with a intentional design, purpose and love, not as some random spontaneous happening in a puddle of "primordial soup".
I believe that God is the only reason that the neutron is attached to the proton in the nucleus of every atom in the universe and without that force, nothing would exist. Everything would evaporate in an unmeasurable small amount of time.


My God, Lord and Savior is large enough and all powerful enough to create all of this, in the time stated in the scriptures, and is still guiding and maintaining all of the laws of Physics, and all His universal laws and does it with one hand behind His back.

I am shocked and amazed at the number of professing "Christians" who have obviously accepted the gospel, Christ's sinless life, death on a cross, descent to hell, ascent and resurrection and transfiguration accepted Him as their savior. However, fall for the lies of Satan as to the creation of our universe.

My position is that I don't mind if you don't accept the Theory of Evolution. If you dismiss it because the concepts being presented don't match up with the Bible 100%, then that is your prerogative and I won't demand you accept anything.

My only suggestion is that you educate yourself on what The Theory of Evolution actually says from scientific sources. This way you can better have an understanding of why some Christians accept the theory on some levels. I suggest this also because you mention the lightning in a mud puddle thing that is never ever taught in the theory of Evolution. That is actually a straw man of Abiogenesis. If you are arguing about something that you disagree with, but demonstrate you don't even have basic knowledge of the subject, you are not likely to convince anyone who has a basic foundation of the theory. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not, but at least understand what you are arguing against.

 

[Jack Spratt]

My position is that I don't mind if you don't accept the Theory of Evolution. If you dismiss it because the concepts being presented don't match up with the Bible 100%, then that is your prerogative and I won't demand you accept anything.

My only suggestion is that you educate yourself on what The Theory of Evolution actually says from scientific sources. This way you can better have an understanding of why some Christians accept the theory on some levels. I suggest this also because you mention the lightning in a mud puddle thing that is never ever taught in the theory of Evolution. That is actually a straw man of Abiogenesis. If you are arguing about something that you disagree with, but demonstrate you don't even have basic knowledge of the subject, you are not likely to convince anyone who has a basic foundation of the theory. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not, but at least understand what you are arguing against.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Darwin start this whole fiasco with the "Origin of the Species"? Wasn't this theory that we weren't created but happened out of the blue and started as a single cell and "evolved" to what exists today? That in a nutshell needs no creator..and removes the need for God from our world.

Seems to me that as something new in science shows up that goes against this or is problematic for it the evolution people bend and change to fit the new knowledge.

 

[Barbarian]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Darwin start this whole fiasco with the "Origin of the Species"?

The Origin of Species. In other words, not how life began, but how new species appear.

Wasn't this theory that we weren't created but happened out of the blue and started as a single cell and "evolved" to what exists today?

Darwin had no idea about the origin of life, except for this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

That in a nutshell needs no creator..and removes the need for God from our world.

Surprised? You have a lot of misconceptions about this. Why not read the book and learn about it?

Seems to me that as something new in science shows up that goes against this or is problematic for it the evolution people bend and change to fit the new knowledge.

It must seem like cheating to creationists. If new evidence shows a theory to be wrong in some particular, the theory is either corrected or replaced. That's how science works. So modern evolutionary theory is different than the one Darwin proposed, although his five points remain as solid as ever.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Darwin start this whole fiasco with the "Origin of the Species"? Wasn't this theory that we weren't created but happened out of the blue and started as a single cell and "evolved" to what exists today? That in a nutshell needs no creator..and removes the need for God from our world.

No that isn't what the Origin of Species says at all. The Origin of Species lays out the basic concept of the Theory of Evolution. Darwin names mechanisms such as Natural Selection as means for how organisms adapt and survive. The book barely touches on origins because the theory is mostly just practical application of organisms diversity. Not how Life got started. Cells weren't even that big of a concept at the time of the Origin of species. Darwin was completely unaware of genetics at the time as well. Micro biology and Genetics were just starting when Darwin published his book. He was actually vastly wrong about several concepts. However, these concepts were corrected by Ghould and Mendel. Mendel being a Christian Monk. Most of Darwin's theory is actually based on taxonomy from Linaeus and the actual concept of Evolution was original explored by John Baptist Lemark. Darwin was just the first one to organize taxonomy and evolution into a cohesive theory and give models as to how it functions. That is why he is credited. There were other scientists at the time that came to very similar conclusions as Darwin. Mendel being one of them, but through genetics.

Darwin actually makes several comments about a creator. The final paragraph of the Origin of Species actually directly mentions a creator. The quote here.

"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Final Paragraph.

Seems to me that as something new in science shows up that goes against this or is problematic for it the evolution people bend and change to fit the new knowledge.

How science works is that nothing is ever set in stone. All theories are subject to change when new information fits better. Ghould discovered Punctuated Equilibrium that had evidence that evolution isn't always slow or gradual. Ghould presented that when new niches open or mass extinctions that rapid evolution takes place where organisms take advantage of new spots in the ecosystem.

Mendel demonstrated Genetics works and replaced some of Darwin's concepts of how traits work. Science always adapts to new information and reforms theories to account for the new information. Its like how Newton has several laws and theories that deal with relativity, However many of theories break down and don't work when taking into account large bodies in space. Einstine added and changed Newton's concepts on relativity to better explain and function with the new data. We don't throw out Newton all together though, because his laws and theories still work on a smaller level. Einstien just added to it.

You understand what I'm saying dude?

 

[Barbarian]

It should be noted that while Darwin observed that evolution is almost always gradual, he also noted that those small increments could happen at different pacing. It's possible for evolution to be both gradual and rapid at the same time.

 

[Jack Spratt]

You understand what I'm saying dude?

I understand what you are saying here.

However, this phrase that Darwin states, I cannot accept..

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

The text of the Holy Bible is very clear that God created plants and animals in their own kinds, and man in His image and Eve from an already mature man's rib....

Darwin may mention the creator but remember, Satan believes in Christ too.

 

[Barbarian]

However, this phrase that Darwin states, I cannot accept..

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

God didn't consult us. As He points out in Genesis, the Earth brought forth living things as He intended.

 

[Jack Spratt]

Genesis 2:7 States that God formed man from the dust and breathed life into his nostrils and at this point he became a living being.

This means God purposely, with His own hands, formed Adam from the dust, in His image and breathed life into Adams nostrils HIMSELF.

This is another blatantly obvious biblical account that man did not evolve.

Also, nothing died ever before the fall. Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit there was no death. Death was a consequence of the first sin.
SO all these beings over billions of years, did they live for billions of years. Can you imagine how many things would be creeping, walking, poking and flying around if there was no death for all those eons and millenniums?

Death was never a plan. Adam and Eve were meant to live forever, sinless, in direct communion with God as they did before the sin.

BUT they ate the forbidden fruit... thus they must at some point die.

Now they were removed from the garden so that they would not eat of the tree of life.... then, these sinful humans, would live forever. They were, as a result removed from the garden as they could no longer be trusted and were given all the curses that went along with their sin.....including a physical death.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis 2:7

States that God formed man from the dust and breathed life into his nostrils and at this point he became a living being.

This means God purposely, with His own hands, formed Adam from the dust, in His image and breathed life into Adams nostrils HIMSELF.

That's not what it says. Indeed, as Jesus says, God has no body. God doesn't have a nose or earlobes, or hands.

Also, nothing died ever before the fall.

Had to. Plants died. Adam was a heterotroph; he had to eat something living to survive.

Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit there was no death. Death was a consequence of the first sin.

God told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Yet Adam lives on many years, physically. The death God mentioned was a spiritual death, not a physical one. Indeed, if Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die someday. He saved us from a deeper, spiritual death.

SO all these beings over billions of years, did they live for billions of years. Can you imagine how many things would be creeping, walking, poking and flying around if there was no death for all those eons and millenniums?

If you're right, God goofed. Because He made all these organisms, able to reproduce. If (and using your assumptions) Adam hadn't sinned, the world would be quickly overrun by flies, weeds, bacteria, etc.

Think.

 

[turnorburn]

What do you mean that's not what he says here's what Jesus said..

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

tob