Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

TUAD,

Have you found any more similar testimonies? I would like to read them if you have.

TUaD, can you explain what parts of the Genesis account you use to justify a possible old earth?

I’ve heard from John on his reasons, but not from you. He applies to the Framework theory and science. What do you do? What is suspect with young earth creationism that causes you to remain on the fence between the two?

Also, I have no issue with evolution, and I know Genesis and the theology better than most people who post here, and probably most Christians outside of scholasticism. How come I’m not some horrible apostate, and why is my faith stronger than its ever been?

(hint: I don’t believe the lies used by YECs anymore!)

Sirius,

In any case, this same Genesis, part of the revealed Word of an infallible, infinite God who was there, also states that the world was created in 6 literal days and that there was a worldwide Flood in the time of Noah.

Welcome to the party! About a 1,000 posts are calling out to be read by you! We’ve discussed this before and have come to the conclusion that it isn’t good to read scripture apart from its historical context.

And our children reject Christianity wholesale for the sake of this lie of evolution.

People of your stock, who set up this false dichotomy between the Bible and evolution, are the chief cause of this exodus. You are of the same mindset that accused Galileo of being in league with the devil. You deny God the glory of His creation, set His natural revelation against his special, and undermine the use of reason and awe in the minds of the youths placed under your precarious care.

I wonder which goodly arguments you will present before the Throne of Him before whom we must all give an account when He asks you why you did not consider the fruit of evolution?

The fruit of evolution? Why not the fruit of heliocentrism, or embryology, or meteorology, or medicine, or any other science that makes use of methodological naturalism (which you also use)?

Doesn’t God knit us together in our mother’s womb? Doesn’t He send the rain and snow, and make the sun rise and set, etc? Isn’t He the healer of our infirmities?

Would you accuse your doctor or the local meteorologist on TV for being godless heathens or useful idiots who practice the same methods of science that support the theory of evolution? How much science will you allow that takes away the glory that, up until the last few hundred years, belonged solely to God?

Like Richard and his hypocritical use of science to interpret the Bible, I don’t think you’ll be consistent in your opposition to all de-glorifying science because that may expose you too much. Evolution is easy to oppose because nearly all Christians are ignorant of it and easily lead astray. Not so with medicine or the weather or how a baby grows in the womb.

Let me see you consistently oppose those sciences to preserve the glory and integrity of God’s Word and actions in the world. Then your fear-mongering may be in…

Like Richard and his hypocritical use of science to interpret the Bible

Greg, as I’ve tried to explain, but you try hard to ignore…there is never a problem using truth to understand the bible. It’s only the *false* claims of science which have incorrectly forced the reinterpretation of Genesis — such as the claim that the 4.54 billion year age of the earth is proven.

This is simply the application of the biblical concept: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”

Was Jesus really resurrected from the dead? Since you seem to subject everything to your view of science, what science allows this?

Was there a real space-time Adam?

This is a sincere question. Would any of the TEs please define which theory or theories of evolution they believe is/are correct, and/or proven scientifically?

darwinism (I don’t expect any takers here…),

Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT),

evo-devo,

gradualism,

punctuationalism,

neutral theory of molecular evolution,

other?

And please specify what role God has. Does he just wind everything up and let “natural laws” take over? If so, at what point? Does God intervene in adding new information into the genome as needed for new structures or is this accomplished by one of the above theories? Please be specific.

I mentioned my brief discussion with John Polkinghorne in which he said he sees room for God’s action in quantum indeterminacy.

Richard,

Agreed, except when I brought the issues up originally that wasn’t how you were using it. You opposed our use of science to seek out an alternative interpretation with no qualifications at all. There was no “test everything” statement from you, just “Yet you appear to ignore this limitation on ’science’ and instead accept its conclusions, then you must conclude that the scriptural account does not mean what it appears to say, so the whole ANE cultural argument is used.”

It was only after we pointed out that you use science (along with its limitations) too that you changed your tune.

I have to disagree with your claims of false science. I think John established the earth is older than any YEC would allow, even barring the radiometric data. Regardless, I think there is sufficient reason to believe that Genesis 1 isn’t about material creation anyway.

Would you like me to buy you the book?

(Ok, I’m finished on the above subject, you can have the last say if you want)

Your questions:

1. Yep. God used a miracle; causes of miracles aren’t subject to the scientific process.

2. Sure. Never denied this one.

I’m kinda running out of things to say and stamina to keep saying them. How long you think this thing will go on? 1,006 posts is a lot!

Re: #1,005,

I don’t know why we have to know all this to hold to TE. Why not just let science be science? We don’t question how God puts us together in the womb, or how He guides and determines the weather, do we? Why should biology be any different?

I know where I stand but I don’t claim to know everything about it all. I don’t think that’s a requirement. (Of course, the YEC can always just appeal to God! “How did this happen?” “God or the flood did it! Yay!!”)

Greg,

Why would you think the resurrection is a miracle and the Genesis flood not one? Since the ANE worldview is claimed to refer to function rather than the material, why do you not understand the resurrection as just a functional event…ie, as those who claim that Jesus died permanently, but his teachings live on and that is what scripture means by “resurrection”

How does Adam fit into your understanding of evolution? Are all humans who have ever lived his genetic descendants?

I don’t know why we have to know all this to hold to TE

If you do not know this, they your choice to believe is simply due to a faith in consensus science. You would then claim to believe something that is ill defined, and that you do not understand.

(Continued)

But to venture forth, God seems to work through first and secondary causes as He sees fit. Maybe at the quantum level He really did knit me in my mother’s womb, or maybe it was just part of His perfect plan that I be conceived through “natural” means which He established and upholds. Maybe it was a mixture of both, with the latter being the only one science can discern.

Now I’m not a scientist, nor do I have as comprehensive a grasp of evolution as Gabriel does, so I’ll let him answer the theory part of your question.

But I will say that it doesn’t matter to me what one is true, or what parts of some are true, or what the reigning theory will be ten, twenty, or a hundred years from now.

That’s the convenient beauty of understanding the creation account as the ancients did. It doesn’t depend on science nor does it demand what science should discover about the universe. Not tying it to any particular theory or knowledge of material origins is a wonderful testament to God’s wisdom. Wherever science goes, that’s fine with me; it will never tread on the universal functions that God created and upholds. Nor will it ever bring into doubt God’s existence or actions in the world, as science isn’t capable exploring those.

Like I’ve mentioned previously, this is the best position in this current debate because its the most truthful to all forms of God’s revelation.

To Sirius Knott regarding #998

“If I may point out, Jesus called people snakes, whitewashed tombs full of dead mens bones and play actors [hypocrites] and dubbed Herod “that fox.” So I suppose Jesus exposed himself with His namecalling. Seriously, will you utterly ignore the man’s objection or is his accusation justified?”

i don’t think its necessary to start calling people names. i disagree with your comments and reasoning but i have no cause to call you an ignoramus, fool, or any other name.

“Comprehend something here: The foundational basis of the Gospel is Genesis. The very reason we need to be saved is found in a literal Fall requiring the literal substitutionary sacrifice of a literal Savior. There is something wrong with the world, but it was not always so. The Bible claims that death came by sin. Death is the deserved earnings of sin. All have sinned in Adam, but whosoever will believe on the Second Adam can have eternal life. And one day it will be restored and death will be no more.”

i believe the above, except the death you are talking about is spiritual death.

“And why do you tell the atheist that he need not trust the Bible when it speaks of Creation, but he should trust it for the Gospel?”

i believe in the Creator and His creation, just not your misinterpreatation of it.

“In any case, this same Genesis, part of the revealed Word of an infallible, infinite God who was there, also states that the world was created in 6 literal days and that there was a worldwide Flood in the time of Noah.”

the hebrew word for yom has many meanings, please refer to:

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

“Yet you ask along with that Serpent, Did God really say?

you now have stooped lower than TU&D!!!!!

“Yet expect the atheist to fully trust God’s Word for salvation. Thus your hypocrisy is complete. And our children reject Christianity wholesale for the sake of this lie of evolution.”

no they reject it because of the false YEC doctrine being held up along with the Gospel and the YEC position falls apart under any amount of investigation. so hence the YEC position isn’t true so the Bible must not be true.

please study the word “yom”

Richard,

Re: 1,007

Why would you think the resurrection is a miracle and the Genesis flood not one?

I don’t think I said the flood wasn’t ever a miracle. I don’t know where the water came from and how God got it there, or where it went afterward. I only spoke on the extent of it.

Since the ANE worldview is claimed to refer to function rather than the material, why do you not understand the resurrection as just a functional event…ie, as those who claim that Jesus died permanently, but his teachings live on and that is what scripture means by “resurrection”

I don’t understand the resurrection that way simply because its described as a miraculous, historical, actual event. The Gospels and Paul are pretty clear about this, and there is no solid reason, scientific or otherwise, to dispute it. The historical evidence is consistent with a resurrection. Eleven scared disciples couldn’t go out into the world and spread the Gospel unless some magnificent event encouraged them.

Remember, science can’t speak on the causes of miracles.

How does Adam fit into your understanding of evolution? Are all humans who have ever lived his genetic descendants?

Bad question to ask. You know I don’t bring science into ancient scripture. Trying to answer modern questions with an ancient text not concerned with those questions isn’t good exegesis. You and I both know the ancients didn’t think that way! See Genesis 30:39

But wherever and whenever Adam lived, he is a relative of mine, either biologically or in the faith.

Cheryl,

Do a search on Google for “ex Christian”.

People leave the faith for many reasons.

Sadly, many are due to Christians. The single greatest cause of atheism are Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips then deny Him by their lifestyle.

According to TUaD, anything that leads people away from the faith is bad, like evil evolution, so I guess Christianity is bad too.

But I am sure she doesn’t think that. I would guess that she would object by saying those bad Christians aren’t accurately representing Jesus, and if they were there wouldn’t be as many atheists who cite Christians as their greatest influence.

Of course, she isn’t as apologetic concerning the fruits of theistic evolution. She unquestionably assumes that those “apostates” are accurately representing the situation and truly do understand all the issues at stake (gleefully quoting an atheist who thinks he can do better than God in designing the world).

But then you have someone like me, who does know the science, who does know the theology, and who does know scripture yet has no insurmountable issue with science and the Bible and who’s faith is very strong.

TUaD and her ilk have no response to people like me, so she just calls us names and lines us up with the devil. Look at her posts. That’s all she’s ever done here.

But you know from reading this whole blog that there is much more to Gabriel and I than just being useful idiots. I’m still waiting on someone who can provide an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is consistent through and through, and thus far no YEC has done so. Gabriel is waiting for someone to discuss evolution with, but other than John, no YEC has stepped up to the plate. Bold rhetoric, no substance.

As I mentioned in my reply to Sirius, most Christians who come into contact with evolution leave the faith because they have been wrongly taught their whole life if one is true, the other is false. The blame for apostasy lies once again with Christians.

TUaD and Sirius are like children who build a sand castle below the high tide line and get angry and throw a fit when the waves wash it all away. They shouldn’t have been building there in the first place!

Have you heard of Glenn Morton? He was a YEC who wrote for the Creation Research Society Quarterly, published by the Institute of Creation Research, led by Henry Morris. He was a geophysicist who decided to get out in the field and actually work with the data, but eventually had to leave YEC because none of it worked. I’ll let you read the rest of his story here: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

YEC is a paper-thin interpretation of a text which most adherents have only a surface level understanding of. When you build on a bad foundation, its only a matter of time before it falls. TUaD and Sirius are sounding the alarm that the waves are coming, but they should never have built there in the first place.

When the walls fall down, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Bad question to ask. You know I don’t bring science into ancient scripture. Trying to answer modern questions with an ancient text not concerned with those questions isn’t good exegesis.

You really must be kidding. So now who begat whom is a “modern question”?? The idea that Genesis (or ANE in general) is not concerned with physical lineages is laughable. Please provide evidence of this assertion.

Jesus has his lineage traced back to Adam. Is Jesus a descendant of Adam?

Wow, I thought the fireworks were over last night.

John wrote:

Furthermore, debate respecting how stars are formed does not provide any proof against their age. They are separate issues, and to throw in a dispute in astronomhy about star formation is the fallacy of a “Red Herring”, which is also Known as a “Smoke Screen” or “Wild Goose Chase.” A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic (star formation) is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue (age of the universe).

this simply shows that you don’t understand that that age of stars is intimately tied to the theory of stellar evolution, which early on involves the formation of the first stars….or perhaps you do understand this and are deliberately obfuscating…either way you wasted bandwidth with your blathering about red herrings…

Like Dave Z, I thought the fireworks were over last night! Please folks, the conversation here is getting unpleasantly hot lately.

Richard,

Re: Post #1,013

You really must be kidding. So now who begat whom is a “modern question”?? The idea that Genesis (or ANE in general) is not concerned with physical lineages is laughable. Please provide evidence of this assertion.

Never said it wasn’t concerned with physical lineages. It very much obviously is.

But the issue of genetic decent wasn’t a concern with them because they had no understanding of the concept. That’s our deal, not theirs. Didn’t you read the verse I gave you from Genesis 30?

Genesis 30:37-43
Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban’s flock. Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s. Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

This is clearly not how genetic traits are passed on to later generations!

Further, there was not an understanding of, or at least regard for, maternal decent, only paternal. That’s why Abraham could father a son by Hagar, and not Sarah, and still have it considered legitimate.

But even where I to ignore all this, we still have to consider the limited geographical area Genesis is referring to as the whole world and all people. Its only speaking of the general area around the Fertile Crescent, just as it always has. Didn’t we discuss this with the flood? It’s the same idea. The scope of the author was simply limited. Its wrong to read modern geography into an ancient account.

Look at Genesis 41:57 for example. Did people from Japan, South America, Australia, and the northern most reaches of Canada all come to Egypt because all the world had a famine? Or is this better understood as a limited geographical area around Egypt, which would have constituted the whole world and all people to the writer and audience?

So in as much as people trace their decent back to the Fertile Crescent, they are more likely to have Adam in their lineage than say, a person in China or South America.

You also have the sticky situation where evidence for human culture precedes that of even the most liberal pronouncements by YEC of when Adam lived.

So Richard, when did Adam live?

Like Dave Z, I thought the fireworks were over last night! Please folks, the conversation here is getting unpleasantly hot lately.

Its fruitfulness is questionable too.

I’m leaving to drive to CT in five days, getting married in 12, and will be out and about on a honeymoon and other things for several weeks, so I’m gonna draw my posting to a close soon.

This will be post 1,018. I’ll continue posting until 1,050 and call it quits after that. I’ll just be a spectator then, as I doubt my wife will tolerate me devoting large amounts of time arguing on the internet!

Here’s hoping John, TUaD, and Gabriel get into a nice and weighty discussion on evolution! That’ll be prime-time stuff right there!

Greg,

Congratulations on your upcoming Marriage! May the Lord’s blessings be upon you and your new wife.

Cheryl: “TUAD,

Have you found any more similar testimonies?”

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” – William Provine.

“Any creationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win over the jury simply by asking me: ‘Has your knowledge of evolution influenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?’ I would have to answer yes.” – Richard Dawkins.

“Some time ago, I received a telephone call from a distraught Christian mother. Her teenage son came home from school that very day and sat down at the kitchen table to have a snack and began to talk to his mom—as he did practically every day after school. Then, in the midst of their conversation, he announced in a very matter-of-fact tone, “Mom, I think I need to tell you—I don’t believe in God any more.”

It was—literally—every parent’s nightmare. This woman’s precious heritage—the child who was the fruit of her womb and the light of her life—was in danger of losing both his faith and his soul. The mother, as you might expect, was shaken, distressed, and forlorn. With tears flowing down her face, she managed to recover from the initial shock just enough to speak a single word: “Why?”

Her son’s answer? It was essentially the same as another one-time 17-year-old by the name of Edward O. Wilson—except her son didn’t even make it to college before beginning to lose his faith. “My biology teacher,” explained the youngster, “has been telling us all about evolution, and has shown us scientifically that it is true. If evolution’s true, you don’t need God. I’ve seen the proof for evolution—which is why I don’t believe in God any more.”

From: 17-Year-Olds, Evolution, and Atheism.

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” – William Provine.

Theistic evolutionists, aiders and abetters to the greatest engine of atheism ever invented, are “useful idiots” who are happily employed by the Enemy. So sad.

1016. cheryl u on 05 Jul 2009 at 8:51 pm #

Like Dave Z, I thought the fireworks were over last night! Please folks, the conversation here is getting unpleasantly hot lately.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Torquemada, and he lies coiled at the center of every true believer’s heart.

Re posts on evolution and rejecting faith

There were atheists before the theory of evolution, so evolution alone is not determinative of whether one remains or becomes a follower of Jesus. Moreover, the concern of evolution is not relevant to those believers who are TULIP Calvinists, as God has already foreordained who will be saved, will leave the rest to die, and will preserve those whom he saves (and no presentation of evolution will ever change that). Those who are not TULIP Calvinists are, obviously, concerned about evolution.

If the presence of life were the only line of argument (i.e., apologetic) for God, then it might be a greater concern. However, there are many arugments for God, and no one need become an atheist because of evolution. When people stop, or never start, following Jesus it’s usually because of pride or some other sins, and not because of intellectual or rational arguments about the existence of God, and such non-believers latch onto arguments such as “evolution makes God unnecessary” as a pretense or excuse.

There are many Christians, such as Gabe on this thread, or Francis Collins (the famous scientist), who believe in evolution and have kept their faith. So, obviously, there is no inevitable tie in between the two (belief in evolution and giving up the faith).

Moreover, it is important to distinguish between theistic and non-theistic (or materialist) evolution. Only the latter has no need for God. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that exclusively naturalistic and materialist evolution cannot account for the beginning of life, nor for its development to the present. Consequently, I think the only potentially viable form of evolution would be one planned and initiated by God.

What is revealed by stories about “evolution and giving up God” is that it is a faulty approach to tie one’s belief in God to tightly to any particular science–and that especially includes YECism. YECism is tightly, indeed chained, to a very specific view of science and to particular scientific conclusions. When the science is shown to be wrong, then the faith falls too. What is particularly telling about the “giving up faith stories” that one reads in books or on the internet, is how many of them result from a fundamentalist faith that rejected modern science. The evidence of science is just too strong and obvious, and so any “faith” or belief system that is anchored in the wrong science will come crashing down with the crashing of the wrong science.

If one’s faith demands a 6,000 year old earth, but multiple lines of evidence overwhelmingly demonstrate a billions of year old earth, is it any wonder what results?

The faith of OEs neither demands nor relies on a particular view of the age of the earth or of the flood or of evolution. Our interpretation of the Bible allows for any view, and nothing in our faith will stand or fall regardless of what science discovers.

Greg

In #1012 you state: “But then you have someone like me, who does know the science, who does know the theology, and who does know scripture …”

That is quite a pretentious claim, to say the least.

Your bombastic and often caustic responses to anyone
who presents an opinion that you disagree with (Richard, TUaD, Sirius Knott, me, etc.) obviously suggest that you believe that your understanding of these 3 fields (science, theology, and Scripture) is superior to your opponents. I am caused to wonder: What is your educational background in these 3 disciplines that gives you the chutzpah to make such a bold claim? (quoted above). Specifically, what degrees have you earned in these fields, and at what institutions did you earn them?

What, in other words, is the basis of your claimed expertise in these fields?

Re post 1023 by Steve B

Greg’s degrees are irrelevant to the truth of his assertions, otherwise one commits the fallacy of authority (which as been defined in earlier posts).

What I am interested in is the truth of his assertions, which depends on both evidence and reasoning.

Greg did not state that he knew everything about science, theology and scripture, nor that he knew more than anyone else. His point was that knowing things about all three did not result in him giving up his faith, contrary to the assertion of others that believing in an old earth or modern science would result in one rejecting the Bible and faith.

Re post 1015 by Richard

One can determine and know the age of stars and other stellar objects without knowing how they were formed.

For example, one method for calculating the age of stars is to take known distances and the speed of light (and other wavelengths of energy) and known characteristics of light (red shift, etc.) and calculate the age of the universe. The age of the universe constrains theories about the formation of stellar objects because they have to form at the rate of speed that results in what we observe.

Regards,
#John

John CT, #1022,

Faulty and mistaken on several counts.

(1) “Moreover, the concern of evolution is not relevant to those believers who are TULIP Calvinists.”

Utter nonsense. Just like the foolish tripe that Calvinists are unconcerned with evangelism. Evolution is a lie from the pit of hell and all Christians should be “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5) such as evolution.

(2) “There are many Christians, such as Gabe on this thread, or Francis Collins (the famous scientist), who believe in evolution and have kept their faith.”

Some folks have a higher capacity for cognitive dissonance and for ungodly compromise. And there are many apostates who don’t have such a high capacity for cognitive dissonance and who believe in evolution and apostasized.

(3) “Our interpretation of the Bible allows for any view, and nothing in our faith will stand or fall regardless of what science discovers.”

YEC’s, OEC’s, and theistic evolutionists have all apostasized to the lie of evolution.

Evolution is a lie from the pit of hell and all Christians should be “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5) such as evolution.

YEC’s, OEC’s, and theistic evolutionists have all apostasized to the lie of evolution.

:rolleyes:

John CT: “Greg’s degrees are irrelevant to the truth of his assertions, otherwise one commits the fallacy of authority (which as been defined in earlier posts).”

Agreed. So why do we see you commit the fallacy of authority with:

“There are many Christians, such as Gabe on this thread, or Francis Collins (the famous scientist), who believe in evolution and have kept their faith.”

# John,

In comment 1024 above you stated: “Greg did not state that he knew everything about science, theology and scripture, nor that he knew more than anyone else.”

Better recheck the quotes a bit. Go back a bit to # 1003 and we find this quote from Greg: “Also, I have no issue with evolution, and I know Genesis and the theology better than most people who post here, and probably most Christians outside of scholasticism.” So while he didn’t say it in the particular quote you referred to, he has most certainly made that claim very recently, or one extremely close to it, for 2 of the 3 areas questioned.

TUad,

Suppose we find a man holding a bloody knife crouched over the dead body of a stabbing victim. Of course, the police will arrest him. All the evidence points to the conclusion that the man killed the victim. So the case goes to trial to closely examine the evidence to determine guilt. The defense will go to great lengths to provide plausible explanations for why the guy was crouching over the victim holding a knife. Why? Well, the evidence MUST be explained. If the man did not commit the murder, how did he come to be holding the knife? Why was he crouching over the body? Why was he there at all? Why does it not mean what it appears to mean?

The same is true when it comes to evidence regarding the age of the earth, and evolution.

TUaD, all you’ve done is make assertions regarding the dangers of evoution, but you have not addressed any of the material that evolutionists present as evidence. At this point you would lose the trial.

By the way, I do not accept evolution, but I still expect fair intellectual examinations of evidence. If your understanding is correct, it will hold up to whatever questions are posed.

So, to what extent do you understand the arguments of evolutionists and how would you explain their evidence?

“So, to what extent do you understand the arguments of evolutionists”

One can understand and strongly disagree, rebut, and refute at the same time.

Don’t make the simplistic error of thinking that understanding confers agreement.

“and how would you explain their evidence?”

Sin or Ignorance. (BTW, I make a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.)

What you and others might call “evidence”, I might call, as Richard put it: “It’s only the *false* claims of science”.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

You have done nothing except make assertions with no support.

What you and others might call “evidence”, I might call, as Richard put it: “It’s only the *false* claims of science”.

OK, prove the claims are false. I think we would all welcome that.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Does that mean you exempt women who disagree with you?

“OK, prove the claims are false. I think we would all welcome that.”

Don’t be so stupid.

Your challenge is like an atheist asking a Biblical Christian to prove that an atheist’s claims are false and that God exists.

Atheists reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Evolutionists reject the Creation account (historical Adam who had no ancestors).

EricW :rolleyes:

You doing some log-rolling with your eyes.

The arc of this conversation is pretty predictable, actually. In the face of evidence that cannot be rebutted, the next approach is typically to vilify one’s opponents. Hence, the move in TU&D’s comments to open accusations of “apostate!”.

Trouble is, those pesky lines of evidence remain the same regardless of my state before Christ.

Which, by the way TU&D, is not for you to decide (thank God). I know whom I have believed. I have taken the time to research the theology side of this issue, and I KNOW the biology side, because it is my day-to-day job.

I’ve offered before to discuss the lines of biological evidence with you. Will you discuss it or not? Or would you rather stand on the sidelines and call believers like us heretics?

Also, have you ever wondered if God might one day hold you to account for (a) ignoring and denying His revelation in nature and (b) your readiness to label others of His children apostate?

“… every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”

re 1025

In response to (1), how is my point utter nonsense? Those who are elect will be saved regardless of what they learn about evolution, and they will perservere regardless of what they learn about evolution. The issue of the elect’s knowledge of evolution is not the same issue as evangelization. Jesus commanded his followers to evangelize, and God has chosen evangelization as the means by which He effects his election. Believing in, or teaching about, evolution will neither expand nor contract the number of elect by even one person.

In response to (2), how is your comment about cognitive dissonance even relevant? Wouldn’t Gabe or Francis Collins or OEs be able to throw that back in your face and assert that YECs are living with cognitive dissonance? Isn’t what matters the truth and how we know what is true? because the issue of cognitive dissonance can only arise after we have determined what is true.

In response to (3), why do you include YECs in your comment that “YEC’s, OEC’s, and theistic evolutionists have all apostasized . . .”? Most current YEC theories posit rapid evolution of the Biblical “kinds” that were on the Ark, in order to be able to place fewer animals and species in it. But that theory of rapid, miraculous(?) evolution is quite different from the various materialist theories of evolution.

Regards,
#John

Gabriel, #1035, apologize for misrepresenting my statements.

If you don’t know how you misrepresented my statements, then go back the last 100 comments or so, and figure it out yourself.

TU&D,

So you’re not accusing TEs of being in the service of the Dark Lord? (Your terms). Please explain.

TUAD: Gabriel, #1035, apologize for misrepresenting my statements.

If you don’t know how you misrepresented my statements, then go back the last 100 comments or so, and figure it out yourself.

:rolleyes:

And if you don’t do it right now, I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue!!

And if you still don’t do it, I’m going to huff, and puff, and blooooowww your house down!

And then I’m going to tell my mommy!

And after that, I’m going to tell YOUR mommy!

TU&D,

I’m willing to accept that you’re not calling TEs apostate. I’m even happy about it – since that means that you think it is possible to be a true Christian and accept evolution (as do I, obviously).

If it’s ok for Christians to accept evolution, then why all the fuss about it?

(2) “There are many Christians, such as Gabe on this thread, or Francis Collins (the famous scientist), who believe in evolution and have kept their faith.”

Some folks have a higher capacity for cognitive dissonance and for ungodly compromise. And there are many apostates who don’t have such a high capacity for cognitive dissonance and who believe in evolution and apostasized.

TU&D,

This is the comment from you that I took to be accusing TEs of apostacy. In re-reading it I am willing to accept that I may have misunderstood your intent, despite your stated opinions that TEs are “useful for the enemy” and engage in “ungodly compromise.”

So, sorry for misrepresenting your views.

I am still very interested in this though: if you’re saying that accepting evolution doesn’t make you apostate, then my question to you stands: why all the fuss about it?

Gabriel: “So, sorry for misrepresenting your views.”

Gracious apology graciously accepted.

“I am still very interested in this though: if you’re saying that accepting evolution doesn’t make you apostate, then my question to you stands: why all the fuss about it?”

Let’s take this in several parts.

“if you’re saying that accepting evolution doesn’t make you apostate”

You’re right. I’m not saying that it necessarily makes one apostate.

“then my question to you stands: why all the fuss about it?”

As a prefatory sidenote, I would kick your question over to John CT and ask him why he makes such a fuss over YEC since he considers YECs to be fellow Christians. If he answers the way I think he would, I could probably adapt his answer and readily use it to answer your question.

At a general level, let me ask you this: Could a Christian believe a lie, promote a lie, teach a lie, a lie which does incalculable spiritual damage to others, and yet still remain a Christian?

Secondly, if so, would you consider it permissible to rebuke, perhaps even strongly and publically, this erring Christian brother or sister?

I repeat what William Provine stated:

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

TUaD,

Don’t be so stupid.

Your challenge is like an atheist asking a Biblical Christian to prove that an atheist’s claims are false and that God exists.

You would deny even the possibility of apologetics? Guess Peter had it wrong.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Finally,is it possible to have error in belief? Yes
Is rebuke appropriate? Yes and several here have been strongly and publicly rebuking you.

Re post 1027 by TU&D

I used Gabe’s and Francis’ existing faith in Jesus as evidence that one can believe in evolution without giving up faith, and as evidence that rejection of Jesus is not inevitable once one believes in evolution.

I did not use them as authorities for the proposition that evolution is true because they believe in it. Therefore, I did not commit the fallacy of authority. For those interested, this is what the fallace of appeal to authority is:

The fallacy of “appeal to authority” is also known as misuse of authority, irrelevant authority, questionable authority, inappropriate authority, and ad verecundiam. An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

The fallacy of authority is a bit different from other logical fallacies in that it relates to the degree of confidence that we can have in an assertion. We can have a greater degree of confidence in what an “authority” says about his or her field of knowledge than we can have in the opinion of a non-authority. However, even an authority can be wrong and so this fallacy occurs when an authority’s view is taken as a definitive and discussion ending source of truth.

Re post 1033 by TU&D

The point of the comment, “Your challenge is like an atheist asking a Biblical Christian to prove that an atheist’s claims are false and that God exists” is not clear to me. One can accept that challenge and can prove that an atheist’s claims are false and that God does exist.

Re passionate blogging

I think that it is entirely proper for YECs to warn about and comment on what they believe are the dangers inherent in evolution, theistic evolution and an old earth, and vice versa. Despite the passion that has been expressed for one’s own beliefs, and against the dangers or problems of the others, the discussion here has retained a an excellent tone. That tone and a spirit of vigourous debate would be best preserved and enhanced if we all restrained ourselves from using personal ad hominen pejoratives. It’s fine to say that an argument is nonsense or ridiculous, or stupid, etc., but not fine to call a person by such.

Re post 1030 by TU&D

The statement “I might call, as Richard put it: “It’s only the *false* claims of science”” would apply-if it applies at all- equally to both OEs (in regard to the earth’s age) and to YECs (in regard to geocentrism). Certainly the perspective of the geocentrists is that everyone else, including heliocentric YECs, has caved in to “consensus science”. The modern day geocentrists are certainly not convinced.

John CT,

I’ve read your last 2 comments and I could, if I were so inclined, engage in some minor quibbling with you. But it would take us rather far afield, and quite likely be rather pointless and fruitless.

EricW and DaveZ,

I’m going to ignore your comments. If you don’t like my comments, feel free to likewise ignore them. Fair’s fair.

Could a Christian believe a lie, promote a lie, teach a lie, a lie which does incalculable spiritual damage to others, and yet still remain a Christian?

Secondly, if so, would you consider it permissible to rebuke, perhaps even strongly and publically, this erring Christian brother or sister?

Yes, and yes. This is exactly how I view the YEC position, for example.

So, how to resolve this? We’ve agreed that accepting evolution doesn’t necessarily sink one’s faith. I don’t think holding to YEC does either, though I do think it sets one up for a nasty fall if one examines the data.

Does this not then become a discussion about evidence? Why then the reluctance to discuss the relevant data to help us decide?

I suppose one could respond that YEC is the only proper Christian position, but I disagree. It is easy to demonstrate that a literal 6/24/6000 interpretation of Genesis is a relatively modern theology. Moreover, the mountain of evidence against it strongly suggests it’s not a good idea to tie one’s faith to this position.

TUaD,

Go ahead, take your ball and go home.

I asked legitimate questions, which you refuse to answer.

Re posts about evolution as the cause of rejection of Christ

Though I do not doubt that people have rejected Jesus after learning evolution, I very much doubt that “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” [emphasis added]. I don’t find any of the authorities cited for that proposition to be convincing, nor do I find the statement to be backed by any empirical proof.

The phrase fails to distinguish between theistic and non-theistic evolution. The latter has no need for God, and would be a good (though not sufficient) argument against His existence. The former, though, does have a role for God.

More importantly, however, the phrase entirely misses the point, about the truth value of the theory of biological evolution. Evolution is either true or it isn’t and consequences cannot change the truth value. If it is true, then we will have to deal with its truth value.

The fallacy of “appeal to the consequences of a belief” can be expressed in the following ways:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief and to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (i.e., evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (i.e., motivation).

A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.

If TU&D believes what Provine says, his believe may motivate him to argue passionately, but it does not prove the truth of his argument.

Of course.

That’s why I wrote previously:

“Evolution is a lie from the pit of hell and all Christians should be “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5) such as evolution.”

Re post 985 on dating

I provided both reasons why radiometric dating could should variant ages for the same rock formation (e.g., composed of rocks of various ages), and why radiometric dating is believable for most rock types. However, I can provide more.

Nevertheless, even if we completely eliminate radiometric dating as a source of evidence, there are still numerous other lines of evidence that all converge on an ancient date. Among these other lines of evidence are ones that you have not responded to, including ice cores, the Joggins cliffs, corals, the Green River formation.

Re post 986 on the Noahic flood

I do know that there are differing YEC proposals for or descriptions of the mechanics of the flood, but I did not go into those differences because it is irrelevant to my distinction between the YEC descriptions of a global flood and the non-YEC descriptions of the global flood While belief in a young earth has been around for centuries, YECism is largely a mid-20th century invention and is connected closely to the ICR and AIG. As I have noted in previous posts, it is possible to believe in both a global flood and an old earth (and many do).

What is unique about YECism is that it uses the global flood (by whatever mechanism) to account for a wide range of observable phenomena, including sedimentary rock and the movement of the earth’s tectonic plates by postulating an extremely violent and catastrophic flood that not only killed all life (except in the ark), but also completely rearranged and changed the appearance and nature of the earth’s surface.

A belief in a global flood does not necessitate a belief in that kind of a flood.

Regards,
#John