Technology???

[RiverJordan]

I used that term so that you (or other evolutionists) would understand. I obviously don’t agree with the term.

But as a non-scientist, you don't get to redefine scientific terminology to suit your needs. As it stands, "microevolution" is evolution, which is why the word "evolution" is in it.

Now this is truly funny. Because evolution, at the core, postulates a common ancestor for all life.

Except nowhere does it postulate that "a dog produced a non-dog".

OK, let’s not dance around anymore: whose world is this? And try to answer in only one or two words. You shouldn’t need more, if you actually read the Bible.

Wait...are you going to argue that science and scientists are under the control of Satan?

1. how long it takes for that new “species” to “arise”?
2. couldn’t it be that you purposefully define the result as a new species in order to show that as evidence of evolution?

1) Depends on the population.
2) No. Do you agree that if we have two populations that are physically unable to interbreed, they are different species?

 

[KingJ]

Wait...are you going to argue that science and scientists are under the control of Satan?

Science, of course not. God is behind it. But scientists in an evil world where satan is in control.....

 

[RiverJordan]

Science, of course not. God is behind it. But scientists in an evil world where satan is in control.....

What does that mean?

 

[no_one]

You don't know the basics of evolutionary biology. A dog producing a non-dog isn't evolution. That would be a miracle.

But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim. If evolution is true it’s required at some time in the past that a non-dog produced a dog; and the dog of today would in some time produce a non-dog.

Or a lizard would grow wings. Isn’t that what evolution claims, that some sort of dinosaurian lizard turned into a bird?

You claimed we can see macroevolution. So let’s see all that.

Except nowhere does it postulate that "a dog produced a non-dog".

Really? Are you claiming that evolution somehow stopped? If so, why exactly?

Wait...are you going to argue that science and scientists are under the control of Satan?

It was a simple question: are you capable of answering or not?

So, again, whose world is this?

But as a non-scientist, you don't get to redefine scientific terminology to suit your needs. As it stands, "microevolution" is evolution, which is why the word "evolution" is in it.

So the only thing you have in favor of evolution is semantics? Interesting.

And of course you’d claim until the end of the world that microevolution is evolution. Simply because your only evidence for macroevolution is inferred from microevolution, and you wouldn’t want no evidence for evolution, would you?

And here is my term for what you call microevolution: adaptation and the capability to produce varieties. But I think I already told you that, so why exactly would you keep ignoring that?

Do you agree that if we have two populations that are physically unable to interbreed, they are different species?

Please stop talking “species” with me - I’m really not interested in those. Especially since I know how you evolutionists manipulate that term.

But when we see existing species evolving into brand new species right in front of us, "species arise via evolution" becomes reality.

I’m not interested in the game words you’re playing so that you’d have evidence for evolution. I won’t get into the “species” game.

“Species” is a term that belongs to evolutionists. Instead, as Creationist, I deal with kinds. A zebra and a horse would the same kind of animal. And a different kind than a dog.

So that’s were the battle lies: evolutionists claim that all life has a common ancestor. Thus, there were previous kinds of animals that produced today’s kinds of animals. And you said you can see that. Well, I can’t. Dogs produce dogs, horses produce horses, and so on.

But if you see differently, let me know. Until then, stop claiming it. Because not only it’s not a “reality”, but it’s plain foolish. And the entire history of mankind can testify in that regard: dogs have always produced dogs. Just like any other kind of animal will always produce the very same kind of animal.

Oh and you also claimed that you couldn’t see the difference between evolution and the Bible. Well, let me help you with that. Many times it’s not only a difference, but an actual opposition:


Bible: Earth from the beginning (day 1)
(cosmic) evolution: Earth about 9 billion years later

Bible: Earth before the Sun
(cosmic) evolution: Earth after the Sun

Bible: the Bible is the key to the past
evolution: the present is the key to the past

Bible: there was water on the surface of the Earth
(cosmic) evolution: Earth was a hot molten mass

Bible: oceans before land
(geological) evolution: land before oceans

Bible: plants before the Sun
evolution: plants after the Sun

Bible: animals and plants produce “after their kind”
(biological) evolution: all kinds have a common ancestor

Bible: birds before reptiles
(biological) evolution: birds after reptiles

Bible: man created
(biological) evolution: man accidentally appeared as the result of zillions of other accidental events
(theistic) evolution: man appeared as the result of zillions of trial & error events

Bible: man in the image of God
(biological) evolution: man in the image of a beast

Bible: creation completed
evolution: evolution continues

Bible: all things “very good” (before fall)
evolution: all things bad (since they evolve)

Bible: all creation is a wreck (as a consequence of man’s sin)
evolution: the universe has never been better, and continues to improve

Bible: death after sin
(theistic) evolution: death before sin

Bible: man caused death
evolution: many deaths caused man

Bible: death is an enemy
(biological) evolution: death helps evolution (the unevolved must die so that the evolved would take over the population)

Bible: initially, man and all animals vegetarian
evolution: man and many animals carnivores

Bible and observations: everything in the universe decays
evolution and imagination: everything in the universe improves


And to conclude:

Bible: the Word of God
evolution: the word of men


Now, are those enough, or do you want more? Because there are more…

And could you tell me why exactly do you think it was naturalistic processes that have been a cause for all plants and animals and even man, if you already know that it was instead God who created them all?

And why would you assume the present as a key to the past if you already know that not only man, not only animals, not only the entire Earth but the entire universe is fallen (that is, extremely far from what God created), as a result of man’s disobedience? Yes, we are in a graveyard - just in case you didn’t know.

 

[KingJ]

What does that mean?

It should not be rocket science to know that the devil ...is....somewhat behind evolution.

Perhaps the biggest God / Creator bashing idea going around. The problem is that you have simply not thought about it enough or done enough research on the arguments against it. Making a discussion with at the moment rather pointless / opinion based.

 

[aha]

Making a discussion with at the moment rather pointless / opinion based.

I agree.... i think at the end of the day, scientific hypothesis of evolution will be analyzed using philosophical speculation.

 

[RiverJordan]

But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim. If evolution is true it’s required at some time in the past that a non-dog produced a dog; and the dog of today would in some time produce a non-dog.

Or a lizard would grow wings. Isn’t that what evolution claims, that some sort of dinosaurian lizard turned into a bird?

You claimed we can see macroevolution. So let’s see all that.

Really? Are you claiming that evolution somehow stopped? If so, why exactly?

All that clearly shows that you are very ignorant when it comes to evolutionary biology. No scientist has ever claimed that "a dog gave birth to a non-dog" or that "a lizard grew wings".

Where did you get such ridiculous ideas?

It was a simple question: are you capable of answering or not?

So, again, whose world is this?

I guess I understand your POV better now. You believe that since this is Satan's world, science must therefore be a product of Satan. That's sad, and rather ironic given your use of a computer and the internet to say that in the first place.

So the only thing you have in favor of evolution is semantics? Interesting.

And of course you’d claim until the end of the world that microevolution is evolution. Simply because your only evidence for macroevolution is inferred from microevolution, and you wouldn’t want no evidence for evolution, would you?

And here is my term for what you call microevolution: adaptation and the capability to produce varieties. But I think I already told you that, so why exactly would you keep ignoring that?

Well this is really pointless. For you, it doesn't matter what anyone like me says or shows you, does it? In your black/white world, everything is either 100% right, or 100% wrong, and people are either with you or against you. Therefore, since I have different views than you on several things, I am 100% against you and 100% wrong. And that means you will never give any credence to anything I post.

Basically, you've elevated yourself to the status of infallible.

Please stop talking “species” with me - I’m really not interested in those. Especially since I know how you evolutionists manipulate that term.

I’m not interested in the game words you’re playing so that you’d have evidence for evolution. I won’t get into the “species” game.

“Species” is a term that belongs to evolutionists. Instead, as Creationist, I deal with kinds. A zebra and a horse would the same kind of animal. And a different kind than a dog.

Case in point. I could take you somewhere and show you what I'm talking about, but you would still walk away saying I'm wrong. Why? Because if I'm right, then you're wrong. And you can't be wrong, can you?

So that’s were the battle lies: evolutionists claim that all life has a common ancestor. Thus, there were previous kinds of animals that produced today’s kinds of animals. And you said you can see that. Well, I can’t. Dogs produce dogs, horses produce horses, and so on.

But if you see differently, let me know. Until then, stop claiming it. Because not only it’s not a “reality”, but it’s plain foolish. And the entire history of mankind can testify in that regard: dogs have always produced dogs. Just like any other kind of animal will always produce the very same kind of animal.

Oh and you also claimed that you couldn’t see the difference between evolution and the Bible. Well, let me help you with that. Many times it’s not only a difference, but an actual opposition:

When you show a willingness to engage in an actual discussion rather than just tell me "you're wrong" over and over, then I'll consider it.

And could you tell me why exactly do you think it was naturalistic processes that have been a cause for all plants and animals and even man, if you already know that it was instead God who created them all?

And why would you assume the present as a key to the past if you already know that not only man, not only animals, not only the entire Earth but the entire universe is fallen (that is, extremely far from what God created), as a result of man’s disobedience? Yes, we are in a graveyard - just in case you didn’t know.

Why do you care? You're not interested in what I have to say beyond responding "You're wrong" and questioning my faith. Why in the world would anyone try and have a conversation with such a person?

 

[RiverJordan]

It should not be rocket science to know that the devil ...is....somewhat behind evolution.

Perhaps the biggest God / Creator bashing idea going around. The problem is that you have simply not thought about it enough or done enough research on the arguments against it. Making a discussion with at the moment rather pointless / opinion based.

Seriously? I promise you I know waaaaaaaaaaay more about creationism and their arguments than anyone else here. Let me ask you this: What effort have you put into studying science and biology?

And you honestly don't think this whole, "Science is a tool of the devil and you must reject it to be a Christian" isn't having a serious effect on kids today? Why would any Christian pit Christ against science?

 

[RiverJordan]

There you are, not showing evolution: you started with Goatsbeard and ended up with Goatsbeard. So where exactly is the evolution?

You have to say that, don't you? There's no way you could ever allow yourself to say, "I guess that is evolution. Thanks."

So sad to see someone box themselves in like that. I wonder what you're so afraid of.

Ah, that you prefer to call the result a different species … well, you certainly would, because otherwise there would be no evidence for evolution, would there?

Because from your POV, there can't be, can there? No matter what, there can never, ever, ever be evidence for evolution, because if there was, you'd be wrong. And that's impossible.

 

[dUmPsTeR]

Being upset at unmet expectations is hardly anything new, or anything that stems from recent technology. In a way, the story of Cain and Abel centers on unmet expectations. That's just human nature.


I'm at a university in a biology program, and evolution is not "taught as a Law". I don't know where you're getting that information from, but they're not telling you the truth.

Evolution is taught as a fact because it is. We see it happen all the time, right in front of us. I have no idea why anyone would demand that one must reject observable reality to be a Christian.


I agree that the study of science is a means of revealing the wonders of God's creation. It's the reason I got into the field in the first place.

But "intelligent design" is not becoming more popular. It was a term that young-earth creationists came up with when the federal courts ruled against teaching Biblical creationism in public school science classes. They figured they would just keep the same arguments, but strip out all the overt Biblical stuff and sneak it in that way. But the scientists and courts saw through that pretty quickly and now, "intelligent design" is basically dead.


As others said, it's a tool and like any other tool, it all comes down to how you use it.

I'm sorry, I don't believe in human nature. I do believe in God given instinct though, and we were given free will for a reason. So we could choose God, or not.

The story of Cain and Able, IMO, isn't unmet human expectations, it is unmet expectations of God. Also, one thing I learned about the sacrificial system, it shows that God knows that man cannot be w/o sin.

What I meant about evolution being taught as a law was figuratively. What I meant is that evolution is taught as though it is our origin, which, as a believer in God and the bible, is wrong.

I can tell a difference between someone that went to school a while ago, and someone that has gone recently. That is why I had asked you the question before about being in school recently.

I debate atheist in some very dark corners of the net, and they argue that evolution is a law, instead of being a theory. I'm sure you know what a theory is, and yet I'm still going to explain it. Not because I want to sound condescending, but because I genuinely am concerned. A theory is an unproven idea from a man. This certain theory, evolution, was even doubted by the man who created it, Darwin of course.

I do believe that things can change ever so slightly, like micro-evolution, but I believe in creation from God.

I am going to tell you something, and if you truly already know this, please think about it more. A lot of teaching is information passed on from one man to another man to another man etc. etc. Now whether this teaching is true or not, it gets acceptance. And it's one thing to learn facts and figures in school, but they don't much teach how to think anymore.

It's okay to be smart, but to have wisdom, now that is one thing we can all strive for, myself included. I can understand your gaining knowledge and are excited about what you are learning, but with all things, test it with your mind, spirit, and the Word of God. Prayer helps too, and I'm sure you know this, but I mentioned it anyway. Again, I don't mean to sound condescending or redundant, just concerned.

Yes, I agree and like others said, 'it's a tool', but perhaps you didn't see where I mentioned, accidents can happen while surfing the net. Example: you do a search for something on google. You see something labeled with a description of what you feel would be best to click on. But perhaps it was mislabeled and you go to a very negative place like porn. Now your being tempted and challenged to leave that site and delete it from your pc, or not?

Another example: Your looking to down load something, what ever, a tune, movie, or maybe a program. It's mislabeled, perhaps intentionally, now you get something perhaps very, very ugly, dark, and evil.

I do hope and pray our dialog only proves to be fruitful and move us closer to God.

 

[KingJ]

Seriously? I promise you I know waaaaaaaaaaay more about creationism and their arguments than anyone else here. Let me ask you this: What effort have you put into studying science and biology?

Actually quite a lot imho . If you knew ''way'' more you would not be making the statements you are. It sounds to me like you have skimmed over it. I used to be guilty of that too. Trust me, when you actually study it properly, your view will change. You will agree with scripture more.

And you honestly don't think this whole, "Science is a tool of the devil and you must reject it to be a Christian" isn't having a serious effect on kids today? Why would any Christian pit Christ against science?

That statement is mostly propaganda, don't you see that? Any preacher with more then half a brain cell knows 1 Pet 4:10 well. Technology / science / biology are synonymous with Christianity / using what God gave us, in this case being our brain.

You seem to be on the complete opposite side with your acceptance of god-bashing ''science'' and propaganda.

 

[no_one]

If you knew ''way'' more you would not be making the statements you are.

Thanks for stating the obvious, KingJ.

She thinks that Creationism is false because evolution is true. But if she already believes that evolution is true, then it’s obviously that for her Creation is false. But it’s not that what the real question is. The real question is if evolution is actually true, not wishfully true. (And ironically evolution can only be true if God’s Creation is false.)

And since they never ever throw away their evolutionary glasses (that is, they always interpret things through the evolution concept), they will never find out the truth.

Ironically they accuse us of being subjective, and refuse to see how subjective they are themselves. But, although there is indeed evidence for Creation instead of evolution, we at the core admit that our faith is faith, while they never ever admit that. Instead, they call it “a fact”, and they call it “science”. How about that…

 

[no_one]

All that clearly shows that you are very ignorant when it comes to evolutionary biology.

Indeed, when evolutionists can’t keep their promises (like actually showing you the actual evolution, not their interpretation of some facts), they rely to arguments such as: you’re an ignorant! you don’t understand it! you’re uneducated enough (or at all)! And so on…

Meanwhile, it is you, RiverJordan, who claimed we could see evolution happening in front of us. But I can’t see it. And I’m sure there are more people, even on this forum, that can’t see it either.

Instead of showing us evolution, one that we could all see (isn’t that what you claimed?), you’re burying us in hundreds of pages accurately describing your imagination. Well, I for one am not interested in people’s imagination. Nor in their semantics (such as calling an animal a new species of animal, while it’s obviously the same type, or kind, of animal). Instead, I’m interested in reality. Now, why exactly wouldn’t you be too? Especially a reality that speaks about God? After all, do you or do you not believe in God?

And the irony in what you did is the plain admission that we can’t actually see evolution. Because if we could see it, we wouldn’t need hundreds of pages to tell us how we should see it, right? We would, instead, see it…

That was your claim, wasn’t it? That we could see evolution happening in front of us? Yes it was:

Evolution is taught as a fact because it is. We see it happen all the time, right in front of us.

Well, a fact is something like this: we both agree that a building we both see is actually there. We both agree that it’s actually true.

But that’s not what you showed for evolution. That’s only what you claimed. So if you can’t show it, then stop making those claims.

And stop playing semantics too. Not interested in that either.

No scientist has ever claimed that "a dog gave birth to a non-dog" or that "a lizard grew wings".

Again, evolution is something (like a dog) turning into something different (non-dog, that is, something that is not a dog anymore). Anything short of that is not evolution. Because evolution claims that existing animals came from previous, different, types of animals. So nowadays dogs came from non-dogs. And today’s dogs would sometime in the future produce a different type of non-dogs.

And yes the mainstream claim that birds came from dinosaurs means exactly that: an (ancient type of) lizard growing wings.

So stop dancing around and show us evolution. You claimed we could see happening in front of us. So show me a lizard growing wings, or dogs producing non-dogs. Or corn turning into something that isn’t corn. Or whatever turning into something that is not the same type.

That and only that would be evolution – not you playing around with words or citing tens of papers claiming evolution. Because of course mainstream sources would claim evolution, just like you do, wouldn’t they? What would you expect, to claim Creation? Really?

I guess I understand your POV better now. You believe that since this is Satan's world, science must therefore be a product of Satan. That's sad, and rather ironic given your use of a computer and the internet to say that in the first place.

Don’t bother “understanding” my point of view, because I didn’t claim a point of view yet. Instead, I only asked you a question. So answer that question. It’s such a simple question. Moreover, you can plainly and easily find the answer in the Bible.

So, again, whose world is this?

I also asked you if you believe in the Bible. And kindly requested a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. But you didn’t answer.

Tell me, why do you avoid answering even very simple questions?

That's sad, and rather ironic given your use of a computer and the internet to say that in the first place.

The irony is actually this: how does a computer have anything to do with theories about origins, such as evolution?

In your black/white world, everything is either 100% right, or 100% wrong, and people are either with you or against you.

No. Instead, they’re either with God or against God. Which is, for your information, exactly what Jesus said.

Basically, you've elevated yourself to the status of infallible.

No. Instead I regard God as infallible.

Anyway, isn’t that what you are actually doing? Raising yourself to the status of infallible? And other people just like you: the mainstreamers? I, instead, claim only one infallible: God.

Case in point. I could take you somewhere and show you what I'm talking about, but you would still walk away saying I'm wrong. Why? Because if I'm right, then you're wrong. And you can't be wrong, can you?

Actually I’ve been wrong so many times. But it‘s not about that. It’s not about me being wrong. It’s about God being wrong or not (Genesis).

And if you’re ready to show me actual evolution, not what you believe it’s evolution, then you could indeed tell me where to go to see it. I won’t promise that I’ll do it right now (my finances are quite bad momentarily), but I do promise that I will go eventually.

When you show a willingness to engage in an actual discussion rather than just tell me "you're wrong" over and over, then I'll consider it.

How could you possibly not see that that’s exactly what you are doing?

Again, when would you be willing to follow your own advices?

Why do you care?

Because a fallen creation throws uniformitarianism out the window, that’s why. And that’s why you should care too.

You're not interested in what I have to say beyond responding "You're wrong" and questioning my faith. Why in the world would anyone try and have a conversation with such a person?

Again, why don’t you try to follow your own advices?

You have to say that, don't you? There's no way you could ever allow yourself to say, "I guess that is evolution. Thanks."

I have to say that this is funny.

So you indeed admit that you started with Goatsbeard and ended up with Goatsbeard. And you call that evolution. How about that…

So sad to see someone box themselves in like that. I wonder what you're so afraid of.

Why would you not ever think that it’s actually you who’s in a box?

And tell me: why exactly are you afraid if evolution isn’t true? What exactly could possibly be the harm to you, or to anybody, if evolution isn’t true?

Why would any Christian pit Christ against science?

Christ is already against a naturalistic science. Didn’t He create the universe? How could you possibly see it otherwise?

Let me ask you this: What effort have you put into studying science and biology?

Do you mean evolutionary science and evolutionary biology?

Aren’t you running in circles…

Let me inform you that your “science” can only follow your philosophical assumptions. So if you’re starting with a naturalistic worldview (such as mainstream paradigms), you will always find naturalistic “explanations” for things.

But that’s nothing other than circular reasoning. In other words, you see what you want to see.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Let's remember, everyone, that we as Christians believe in being charitable. I'm not suggesting discussions and debates shouldn't be had, but if it isn't done in charity, perhaps it's not worth it.

To defend the faith is a noble thing to do and we should all be doing that, but not if the point is to merely win an argument or corner someone.

 

[no_one]

And here are some gifts for you, in my vain hope that you’ll someday wake up to reality:


“In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers...
If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back...
Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I. L. Cohen, member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Archaeological Institute of America, in “Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities”, New Research Publications Inc. 1984



"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. […] But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. […] I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual."
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in Harper's magazine, February 1984, p.56



“There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.”
the same Colin Patterson, Harper's magazine, February 1984, p.60



"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools ... Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..."
William R Fix, “The Bone Pedlars”, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p.150


Indeed, if only they could find the evidence…



"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."
J. E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51


What? Let’s see that again: “the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately”.

Are you laughing already?



"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth.”
Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, London University, “The Nature and Origin of the Biological World”, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164


Read that again:
“there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists”.



"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth.”
Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, London University, “The Nature and Origin of the Biological World”, John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164


Read that again:
“there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists”.

Indeed, other evolutionists, even mainstream hardcore evolutionists seem willing to admit what you, ironically a Christian, will never do: that God created…




“We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation…”
professor Jerome Lejeune, famous geneticist, in a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985



"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, professor of zoology, Harvard University,
“Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28


Read that again: “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

So now you know the reason they’re claiming evolution.


"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology. […] I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: how did this ever happen?"
Soren Lovtrup, “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth” 1987, London, Croom Helm, p. 422


Read that again:
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science”


And yes, Lovtrup was an evolutionist. In fact, seeing that reality so severely contradicts the formal theory of evolution he had to come up with his own theory of evolution (because evolutionists never give up, do they?).



“Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles."
George Wald, 1967 Nobel prize winner in Medicine, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46


So your god is time. My God is instead the God of the Bible.



“You may, if you wish, compare mutations to accidental misspellings or misprints which even the most experienced copyist may from time to time. [...] an accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or into one's radio set can hardly be expected to make it work better.”
Theodosius Dobzhansky, ”a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist” (wikipedia), “Heredity And The Nature Of Man”, p. 126


"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs."
Pierre Grasse, former president of the French Academie des Sciences, 'Evolution of Living Organisms', Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 8




Now, is there any change in your perspective after all this? Or are you still claiming that evolution is science? Or worse, a fact?

And tell me, if those famous evolutionists couldn’t see evolution, how exactly do you manage to claim that you, instead, can see it?

 

[RiverJordan]

I'm sorry, I don't believe in human nature. I do believe in God given instinct though, and we were given free will for a reason. So we could choose God, or not.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe in human nature". Could you explain?

The story of Cain and Able, IMO, isn't unmet human expectations, it is unmet expectations of God. Also, one thing I learned about the sacrificial system, it shows that God knows that man cannot be w/o sin.

Cain killed Abel because he expected God to accept his sacrifice the same as Abel's. God didn't, Cain was "furious", and killed Abel. His expectations were not met.

What I meant about evolution being taught as a law was figuratively. What I meant is that evolution is taught as though it is our origin, which, as a believer in God and the bible, is wrong.

Do you also believe that since volcanoes create mountains, then Amos 4:13 must be wrong? Do you believe that verse puts you in a position where you have to choose between what you can see happen (volcanoes making mountains) and God and the Bible?

I can tell a difference between someone that went to school a while ago, and someone that has gone recently. That is why I had asked you the question before about being in school recently.

I debate atheist in some very dark corners of the net, and they argue that evolution is a law, instead of being a theory. I'm sure you know what a theory is, and yet I'm still going to explain it. Not because I want to sound condescending, but because I genuinely am concerned. A theory is an unproven idea from a man. This certain theory, evolution, was even doubted by the man who created it, Darwin of course.

Well, those people are wrong. A scientific theory is not something that is "unproven". It is a framework that explains a large set of data. Theories are never "proved", they just explain more and more data. They also never become laws.

I do believe that things can change ever so slightly, like micro-evolution, but I believe in creation from God.

But why does it have to be one or the other?

I am going to tell you something, and if you truly already know this, please think about it more. A lot of teaching is information passed on from one man to another man to another man etc. etc. Now whether this teaching is true or not, it gets acceptance. And it's one thing to learn facts and figures in school, but they don't much teach how to think anymore.

It's okay to be smart, but to have wisdom, now that is one thing we can all strive for, myself included. I can understand your gaining knowledge and are excited about what you are learning, but with all things, test it with your mind, spirit, and the Word of God. Prayer helps too, and I'm sure you know this, but I mentioned it anyway. Again, I don't mean to sound condescending or redundant, just concerned.

The difference is, I can look and see things myself. I can test and see populations evolving brand new traits and abilities. I can hold the fossils in my hand and compare them to other fossils. I can go and see new species evolving from older species. Would you have me pretend none of that ever happened?

 

[RiverJordan]

Actually quite a lot imho . If you knew ''way'' more you would not be making the statements you are. It sounds to me like you have skimmed over it. I used to be guilty of that too. Trust me, when you actually study it properly, your view will change. You will agree with scripture more.That statement is mostly propaganda, don't you see that? Any preacher with more then half a brain cell knows 1 Pet 4:10 well. Technology / science / biology are synonymous with Christianity / using what God gave us, in this case being our brain.

No, I've studied creationism and creationist organizations a lot. And I mean....A LOT!

You seem to be on the complete opposite side with your acceptance of god-bashing ''science'' and propaganda.

There's that black/white thinking again. Amazing.

 

[RiverJordan]

No one,

You claim we can't see evolution happen. I provided you multiple documented examples of new species evolving from older species, across a wide variety of taxa, and in both wild and lab conditions.

Your only response was to wave them all away with "that's not evolution".

You know what that tells me? You're not saying "you can't see evolution" because you think it hasn't happened, you're saying that because you believe it can't happen. In your black/white world, if it turns out that evolution does happen, then you're only left with one choice....the Bible is 100% wrong, God doesn't exist, and you must become an atheist. You're just not capable of anything else...anything in between the two extremes. So out of fear of that, you blankly deny anything and everything that might even hint at evolution being real. Because you're scared; you're scared of what would happen if you were wrong.

As far as your quotes, would you like to examine them, one by one, and see if whatever source you've copied them from is telling you the whole story? Are you at all interested in seeing if maybe...just maybe...you're wrong?

 

[KingJ]

There's that black/white thinking again. Amazing.

River, I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Please use some common sense. Human evolution is a black / white issue.

Explain to me how you tie up genesis with human evolution. If you reject genesis, what do you visualise?

Consider this from wikipedia: ''The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved 2.3 million years ago; the earliest species for which their is positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains were about the same size as a chimpanzee.'' and ''The earliest of our known species, homo sapiens roamed Africa around 195 000 years ago''.

God's plan of salvation is for all of ''mankind''. Now use some lateral thought. God decided to choose His chosen race (the Jews) after 2.299 million years after the Homo gene or around 193 000 years after the first homo sapien? It took that long before God could find an Abraham (1813bc)? It took that long before the sins of the world upset God that He brought the flood? It took that long before God had ''His word'' as a guide for humans to live by? At what stage in the last 2.3 million years did the genus homo become accountable for sin? Surely we would not be accountable for rejecting God if we were still cave-men.

Mankind needs a Saviour because we are highly intelligent and hence accountable for our actions. Intelligence = construction (beyond stone age). Intelligence = mankind able to upset God. Intelligence = God needing to interact with us.

Mankind started off intelligent. Mankind is intelligent. The theory of mankind evolving their intelligence does simply not agree with scripture. Jesus died for all mankind as all mankind is accountable (intelligent).

Heb 2:7 You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, and did set him over the works of your hands. Note it does not say, mankind evolved to the point just beneath the angels. Does that position sound like a 2.2 million old homo labilis or 195000 year old stone age homo sapien?

The other issue that nails evolution for a Christian is the fact that we have a spirit. How does that evolve exactly? Do you believe you are an eternal spiritual being in a temporary vessel?

 

[KingJ]

Thanks for stating the obvious, KingJ.

She thinks that Creationism is false because evolution is true. But if she already believes that evolution is true, then it’s obviously that for her Creation is false. But it’s not that what the real question is. The real question is if evolution is actually true, not wishfully true. (And ironically evolution can only be true if God’s Creation is false.)

And since they never ever throw away their evolutionary glasses (that is, they always interpret things through the evolution concept), they will never find out the truth.

Ironically they accuse us of being subjective, and refuse to see how subjective they are themselves. But, although there is indeed evidence for Creation instead of evolution, we at the core admit that our faith is faith, while they never ever admit that. Instead, they call it “a fact”, and they call it “science”. How about that…

The only faith I admit to is believing Jesus is God. Belieiving there is a God / Creator or that Jesus was around 2000 years ago and changed the world, takes no faith . Just as we don't need faith in gravity.