[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution Lie

[Barbarian]

It's interesting we learn from a textbook, not nature, about our shared ancestry with apes.

Nature screams shows us stasis:

Stasis is part of evolutionary theory, and has been since Darwin. It's called "stabilizing selection", and it works as Darwin predicted.

Here are some annelids (worms) from pre-cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_Sites/Lebanese-Lagerstatt/Annelida/Polychaetes-L.jpg

Sorry, different species and genus.

Here is a brachiopod from the cambrian, which still look the same today.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/house.html

Different species. That one died out about 450 million years ago. We can classify brachiopods very well, because the fine detail of soft tissue was often fossilized, and we know how they differ from modern species. How about the same species? Guess why you can't find one.

Here is a starfish from (supposedly) 420 million years ago, which still look the same today.

Different species and genera. Guess why you can't find a species from that time, still alive today.

God, speaking creationism and other false doctrines:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col 2:8

The man-made tradition of creationism is not Biblical, nor is it supported by evidence.

Darwin's ideas are based on nature,. the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.

Newton's ideas are based on nature, the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.

There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.

Then why are you on a Christian forum? evolution is a religion it takes faith to believe it, why not a science forum or an evolution forum? all that's being accomplished here is one of these..

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

tob

 

[Free]

Barbarian said:

Then why are you on a Christian forum? evolution is a religion it takes faith to believe it, why not a science forum or an evolution forum? all that's being accomplished here is one of these..

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

tob

How does this add anything of value to the conversation? Don't get personal just because you disagree; address the argument, not the poster. Anyone is allowed on these forums, especially Christians.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.

Then why are you on a Christian forum?

Interacting with my fellow Christians.

evolution is a religion

Natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it.

it takes faith to believe it

Evidence. Theories require evidence. That's why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.

why not a science forum or an evolution forum?

I have an interest in the interface between science and faith.

all that's being accomplished here is one of these..

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,

Christians refer to that as the Incarnation. God so loved the world that He sent His only Son to become man and to die for us.

Don't know what it has to do with the fact of evolution, though.

 

[Milk-Drops]

No, that's not what I'm concerned about. Try this... Imagine that you are writing a dictionary. You get to the word "species". What do you put for a definition? You don't have to consider whether, for example, the Pacific gull and the California gull are the same species, until you have a definition. Then you use that defintion to determine whether they are the same species.

You made the same mistake in your analogy about "success". You looked at a doubtful example before you determined a definition. You make the definition first, then you look at the thing and determine whether it fits the definition. If you look at doubtful examples first and then make a definition that fits those examples, it kinda looks like you have an agenda and are not being objective.

The TOG​

Hey The TOG, I think I can actually give you a decent definition.

A Species is a group of organisms within a genus that share similar genetic and morphological traits and are capable of producing fertile offspring.

an example of a genus being Canidae and some species such as bears, dogs, foxes, wolves, weasels, and wolverines.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Then why is it in so many science text books?

The TOG​

Many textbooks have a variation of the cartoon or chart, but usually label and give updated information. Like the Australian text book image you posted. The original image isn't accurate because it uses a chimpanzee as the ancestor. However, Chimpanzees and Humans evolved alongside each other and split into 2 different genus. The line that would lead to humans is labeled as Homo while the chimp line is labeled Pango.

 

[TOG]

Hey The TOG, I think I can actually give you a decent definition.

A Species is a group of organisms within a genus that share similar genetic and morphological traits and are capable of producing fertile offspring.

an example of a genus being Canidae and some species such as bears, dogs, foxes, wolves, weasels, and wolverines.

It's past midnight and I need to go to bed, so I won't be posting much right now, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly the kind of definition I was asking for. I have one or two things I'd like to say about it, but I'll save that until tomorrow. Thank you.

The TOG​

 

[Edward]

Barbarian observes:
There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.

Amen, brother!



Evidence. Theories require evidence. That's why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.
In my experience and walk with the Lord, I have learned that the way it works with the Lord is that first we put our trust (faith) in the Lord, and then we are given evidence and revelation through the Holy Spirit! His Spirit bears witness with our spirit and gives us revelation...

Please expand the quote for more of my reply in bold.

 

[Barbarian]

That probably is why I'm open to the things He shows me in the world.

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.

Not everything that is true, is in scripture. Sometimes you have to pay attention to what He's been showing us since the creation of the world.

 

[turnorburn]

Your preaching the religion of evolution is all Barbarian you preach it with the passion of a street preacher preaching Christ, no offence, not an attack on another poster, just stating the facts..

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian says:

Evidence. Theories require evidence. That's why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.

Scientists overwhelmingly accept it.. please show us where you got this information..

Thanks..

tob

 

[Sparkey]

My official position, that I don't really know and nobody else does either, comes from the discourse between Job and God. I wasn't there. I was not even born and didn't exist. Nobody I know existed at that time. The creation week happened before there was any recorded history.

It's a well know dichotomy. We (the believers in Jesus) are split into more than these two groups. Some choose to accept the Word of God regarding the Creation Week as a more poetic rendering than others who choose to accept things quite literally or 'as stated'. But the fact of the matter is our best position is "I'm unsure," as opposed to "I know this to be a FACT!"

I was raised Catholic and was taught many things about God. It wasn't until I was 17 years old that I actually sought him out. Since then, and try as I might, I've never even sensed any concern of His regarding man's theories. There have been times where I was led to give my testimony and to witness of His Goodness, times where I felt like some of what I was saying was actually inspired by His Spirit and I've wondered about these things. But never have I felt the leading of the Holy Spirit to 'go to war' with people just because they didn't see things eye-to-eye with me.

I don't see things eye-to-eye with God. That's still something that is considered a promise, not yet fulfilled. And I don't think that He is going to stop with me. All are called to come to the full height and stature of Christ. How He's gonna do that with the group that are called His children is beyond me. That's okay too. It is with God that all things are possible.

My best thought is that those who know and cherish the truth may feel free to press on. Follow after Paul who gave us so much by way of example. Who, for instance, has resisted sin unto the shedding of blood? Any yet, he did not say that he had attained the approval he waited for. Perhaps I will be given the honor of seeing some give their all and surrender to the point where others stop and notice, "Truly this is a man of God!"

It would provoke to jealousy, right? I firmly believe that longsuffering toward others is a fundamental skill, a foundation necessary for what we all desire to experience: the Unity of the Faith. We know that Jesus didn't start a work in us in order to abandon us. Same is true for our brothers and sisters. Even here.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Your preaching the religion of evolution is all Barbarian

Actually, it's from the Bible. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. New Testament. Worth looking at. Paul is just pointing out that there is more than scripture to God's truth. I find the idea uplifting. But then, it's the word of God, so no one should be surprised.

you preach it with the passion of a street preacher preaching Christ, no offence,

None taken. Jesus often warned us that we wouldn't always be received well.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evidence. Theories require evidence. That's why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.

Scientists overwhelmingly accept it..

Yep. Taking the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin", and comparing it to the numbers in Project Steve, we get about 0.3% of PhDs in biology who don't accept evolutionary theory. If you include (as the Discovery Institute does) engineers, exterminators, philosophers, and such, it's lower, but still overwhelming.

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
"God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

General Public - 44% Scientists - 5%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

General Public - 39% Scientists - 40%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

General Public - 10% Scientists - 55%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm

please show us where you got this information..

See above.

 

[Sparkey]

Belief system Creationist view
"God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

General Public - 44% Scientists - 5%

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publia.htm
See above.

How about another option:
"God created man as stated in the Bible"

I don't believe man was created "pretty much in his present form" at all. Who does? The term "pretty much in his present form" is so vague as to be meaningless. There is no mention of Adam at all. Adam was not like us. For one, at the time of his creation, he was not subject to death as we are. We have evidence (the Bible) that he spoke directly to God.

I take the phrase 'pretty much' to mean that God did not create man in the form of an ape? If that is the case, okay, I'll agree, but only to a degree. Is that what was meant?

One interpretation of the results of the poll suggests that colleges (read: liberal educators) have made an effort to negatively influence belief in the Bible. Why is that? It seems that you are giving evidence to support that particular theory. Was that your intent?

 

[turnorburn]

This is what God thinks of the "general public"

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

evolution is a religion and should be treated as such, man is lost enough without adding fuel to the fire..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

This is what God thinks of the "general public"

Actually, He loves us. He says so. He loves the world so much, He sent his only Son to die for us.

evolution is a religion

Here's how you test that. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science.

man is lost enough without adding fuel to the fire..

Which is why YE creationism will have much to answer for at judgement.

 

[TOG]

Here's how you test that. Ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science.

So, if you ask a creationist why he believes in creation, and he says "because the Bible says so", then it's religion, but if he starts talking about evidence, then it's science. Right? Whether something is a religion does not depend on why a specific individual believes it, but on the nature of the thing itself. The dictionary definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe". Seems to me that evolution fits that definition pretty well.

The TOG​

 

[Vaccine]

Stasis is part of evolutionary theory, and has been since Darwin. It's called "stabilizing selection", and it works as Darwin predicted.

I though that applies to "traits" of a species not species as a whole. Most species don't change over time according to the fossil record.

Different species. That one died out about 450 million years ago. We can classify brachiopods very well, because the fine detail of soft tissue was often fossilized, and we know how they differ from modern species. How about the same species? Guess why you can't find one.

They're the same. You can find them if you care to look:
"Lingula anatine, a genus known from the Cambrian, and still surviving"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brachiopod_genera

"one of the planet's oldest species, half-a-billion years"
http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-con...-12-help-save-2-million-year-old-species.html

Here is a starfish from (supposedly) 420 million years ago, which still look the same today.

Different species and genera. Guess why you can't find a species from that time, still alive today.

There are many fossils of starfish dating back to ~430 million years still alive today, if you care to look.

Here's another one, Asterias rubens:

Newton's ideas are based on nature, the "elementary principles of the world", not according to Christ or the bible.

Newton, as most scientists, was studying the creation to learn more about the creator. Newton's ideas did not involve elevating the creation above the Creator.
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Newton


Darwin, who called himself a materialist, elevates the creation above the Creator. Nature, also known as "the elementary principles of the world", becomes the creator of the species. Which is precisely what this verse warns about:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Col 2:8

There are many things that are true that are not in scripture. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Trying to make it into a science text is disrespectful, to say the least.

I agree. Perhaps you would be kind enough to show where I tried "to make it into a science text"?

 

[Barbarian]

So, if you ask a creationist why he believes in creation, and he says "because the Bible says so", then it's religion, but if he starts talking about evidence, then it's science. Right?

Yep. There were, at one time, scientific creationists, who relied only on evidence. But as we got more and more evidence, they fell away. The last world-class biologist who was a creationist died at the beginning of the 20th century.

Whether something is a religion does not depend on why a specific individual believes it, but on the nature of the thing itself.

Wrong. One can believe in a scientific theory for entirely religious reasons. It's just that scientists don't. Likewise, YE creationists believe in the false doctrine of modern creationism, for entirely religious reasons.

The dictionary definition is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".

Aside from the fact that neither evolutionary theory nor any other scientific theory makes claims about the purpose of the universe, let's take a look at a real dictionary.
The Oxford English Dictionary is generally conceded to be the definitive source for the meaning of English words:
religion
Line breaks: re|li¦gion
Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n
noun

• The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: ideas about the relationship between science and religion
  More example sentencesSynonyms
• 1.1 [count noun] A particular system of faith and worship: the world’s great religions
  More example sentences
• 1.2 [count noun] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: consumerism is the new religion

Seems to me that if we make secondary definitions into formal definitions, any conclusion we make about anything is a religion. Clearly not what the word means in common usage. If one's argument depends on bending the meaning of words, isn't that a clue?

I think so.