PDA

View Full Version : A big problem for evolutionists



dave4418
Oct 6th 2008, 02:08 AM
For people who believe in evolution, don't they also have to believe that some races are more evolved than another if they are to be intellectually honest in their belief? No evolutionist would admit to this, but this is what they must believe if they are consistent.

Anyone else feel this?


(the following are just random thoughts that I put in my online journal and have copied here, but haven't bothered to revise for the sake of time. Some of them are also thoughts I derived from Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. A book that to me puts an end to the idea that creationism is non scientific. I strongly urge Christians to read and reread that book.)

With an objective mind, I will come to wherever the truth leads. Most atheists don’t do this. Their judgement is clouded by their bias of not wanting to believe. I'm not trying to demonize atheists however.

Objectively speaking, life is very hard to form. As of now, mankind has not detected even the smallest form of life outside of planet earth. On all the planets we have observed, we have not even found one that can support life (aside from speculation). What’s shocking is that scientists have not even found a DROP OF WATER outside of planet earth. The difference is astounding. On Earth, dig up fertile soil anywhere, and it will be teeming with life. Dig up mass outside of the earth, and there is not the slightest shred of life. The point, is life is not as easily formed as some scientists say. In fact, some scientists say life is a miracle.

I have an enormously hard time believing that the staggering beauty of the earth, nature, the universe, animals, people, are the result of some gigantic accident. Scientists even have a hard time believing that a single cell, with all its vasty complexity came together by accident as well.

I simply cannot account for the differences in the races except by God hand.

Luke34
Oct 6th 2008, 03:30 AM
For people who believe in evolution, don't they also have to believe that some races are more evolved than another if they are to be intellectually honest in their belief? No evolutionist would admit to this, but this is what they must believe if they are consistent. The differences between the races are much too tiny to have any evolutionary significance. Genetically, each person in the human race is just shy of identical to every other person.



Objectively speaking, life is very hard to form. As of now, mankind has not detected even the smallest form of life outside of planet earth. On all the planets we have observed, we have not even found one that can support life (aside from speculation). The planets that can be assessed in this way make up only a miniscule, tiny portion of the eighty billion galaxies that comprise the observable universe. And the universe itself is almost certainly much larger than what we can observe.


What’s shocking is that scientists have not even found a DROP OF WATER outside of planet earth. Observable universe, etc. And water in the frozen and gaseous states has been found, which isn't "a drop of" water but, you know.

ilovemetal
Oct 6th 2008, 05:57 AM
Objectively speaking, life is very hard to form.


Objectively speaking, life is impossible to form.

yup/

TrustingFollower
Oct 6th 2008, 06:46 PM
I am sending this thread over to A&E where it is a better fit for this kind of discussion. Please carry on your discussion.

crawfish
Oct 6th 2008, 10:30 PM
For people who believe in evolution, don't they also have to believe that some races are more evolved than another if they are to be intellectually honest in their belief? No evolutionist would admit to this, but this is what they must believe if they are consistent.

Anyone else feel this?

"More evolved" is a misnomer. Some species of salamanders have evolved more than humans (they contain a larger genome), yet they are certainly not more "advanced" than humans. And all humans are virtually identical anyway.

And in any case, humans of any race have both inherited advantages and disadvantages. White skin is an advantage in colder climes, while dark skin is more useful where it's hotter. And humans as a race are so adaptable that even those differences can be overcome.


Objectively speaking, life is very hard to form. As of now, mankind has not detected even the smallest form of life outside of planet earth. On all the planets we have observed, we have not even found one that can support life (aside from speculation). What’s shocking is that scientists have not even found a DROP OF WATER outside of planet earth. The difference is astounding. On Earth, dig up fertile soil anywhere, and it will be teeming with life. Dig up mass outside of the earth, and there is not the slightest shred of life. The point, is life is not as easily formed as some scientists say. In fact, some scientists say life is a miracle.

For one thing, we do not yet have the methods to find life elsewhere in the universe. We can detect planets around other stars - very large, dense planets - but finding earth-sized planets is a bit more difficult. Even if we could, we don't have the means to "zoom in" on said planet and determine if there is life there or not.

Second thing, we have found water outside the planet earth. We found water on mars, in fact. We've landed on two planets and found water on both...we're batting 100% so far. ;)


I have an enormously hard time believing that the staggering beauty of the earth, nature, the universe, animals, people, are the result of some gigantic accident. Scientists even have a hard time believing that a single cell, with all its vasty complexity came together by accident as well.

Those of us who think evolution is probably true but also believe in God don't believe it is chance at all, but something made inevitable by the hand of God. Evolution doesn't have to be a completely random occurrence to be true.


I simply cannot account for the differences in the races except by God hand.

I cannot account for anything outside of God's hand. And I love learning how He did it!

Marc B
Oct 6th 2008, 10:57 PM
Who says the universe is lifeless except Earth? Certainly not the Bible. maybe it is maybe it isn't. We may be the first physical life, who knows.
That being said even if we do discover life on other worlds that doesn't diminish God in any way. It just means there is even more to His creation than just us. :2cents:

Buzzword
Oct 6th 2008, 11:42 PM
Aside from a narrow-minded literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 (which ignores translation, culture, and overall context), there is NO reason why a Christian can believe in God as creator of everything, and also believe in evolution, as a METHOD of His creation.

The men we consider the "fathers" of modern science were devout Christians, who BELIEVED God created all, and believed that by studying God's created universe, by understanding its workings and HOW it came to be, they could gain a greater APPRECIATION for God's creativity and through that appreciation WORSHIP HIM.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 7th 2008, 12:00 AM
Just so everyone understands, Charles Darwin (Descent of Man) and any "respectable" scientist would disagree with any beliefs that naturalistic evolution didn't create inequality between the races. The only reason such beliefs went out of style is because of how closely these beliefs were tied to Hitler.

dave4418
Oct 7th 2008, 02:44 AM
Wouldn't it be safe to suggest that humans are "more evolved" than apes, providing one believes in evolution?

Niveus
Oct 7th 2008, 09:09 AM
Well, being more evolved, isn't quite the same as being more complex. Being more evolved, basicly means having a greater degree of survivability.

For example, it's probably safe to say cockroaches aren't as developed as (most ;)) humans, in the mental department. But they do however have a far greater survivabilty than us humans: they can hold their breath for several hours, survive far greater amounts of radiation than we do, and they can live for about two weeks without their head, yust to name a few of their abilities.

Evolution can even make lifeforms less complex for the sake of survivabilty, a virus for example, actually went from a complete cell, to yust a protein shell, with a strand of RNA stuffed inside. According to scientific criteria, virusses aren't even considered living beings!

crawfish
Oct 7th 2008, 02:39 PM
Just so everyone understands, Charles Darwin (Descent of Man) and any "respectable" scientist would disagree with any beliefs that naturalistic evolution didn't create inequality between the races. The only reason such beliefs went out of style is because of how closely these beliefs were tied to Hitler.

We all believe in an inequality of the races from a physiological perspective. For a long time, some held that God created some races better than others; that mode of thought was used to justify slavery and injustice.

From a scientific perspective, we should not avoid what "is" just because somebody might use it for the wrong purpose, just as we should not avoid teaching God's truth because others might also twist it to evil.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 7th 2008, 07:01 PM
We all believe in an inequality of the races from a physiological perspective. For a long time, some held that God created some races better than others; that mode of thought was used to justify slavery and injustice.

From a scientific perspective, we should not avoid what "is" just because somebody might use it for the wrong purpose, just as we should not avoid teaching God's truth because others might also twist it to evil.

Actually, it was the Enlightenment idea based on Deism that led to believing that some races are better than others...prior to that, slavery was based on simply being a prisoner of war or owing too much debt, not on race.

Regardless, how do you explain that every reputable biologist prior to 1940 believed that some races were superior to others? It's not a matter of twisting; this was a foundational aspect of biological anthropology prior to 1940 (when it suddenly became passe). Even Darwin wrote about how the African was lesser than the Anglo, and the Irish weren't as evolved as other Europeans. How do you deal with this? (This is where naturalistic evolution gets you).

daughter
Oct 7th 2008, 07:13 PM
It has to be admitted, from a sociological point of view, that the idea of "superior races" arose from the "nature red in tooth and claw" philosophy that came from Darwinism. Christians historically believed, as the Bible states, that God "made of one blood all nations of men ... to dwell on all the face of the earth, and ... determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Eugenics and other forms of modern racism really and truly are the fruit of Darwinism.

crawfish
Oct 7th 2008, 07:21 PM
Actually, it was the Enlightenment idea based on Deism that led to believing that some races are better than others...prior to that, slavery was based on simply being a prisoner of war or owing too much debt, not on race.

Regardless, how do you explain that every reputable biologist prior to 1940 believed that some races were superior to others? It's not a matter of twisting; this was a foundational aspect of biological anthropology prior to 1940 (when it suddenly became passe). Even Darwin wrote about how the African was lesser than the Anglo, and the Irish weren't as evolved as other Europeans. How do you deal with this? (This is where naturalistic evolution gets you).

The same way I deal with people who claim that God blesses some races over others. By claiming that they are speaking beyond their understanding, and they are wrong.

Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, and even since 1940. They were as subject to the biases and stereotypes of their time as we are, and there is no question that some of that bias seeped into their work. However, I would strongly argue that you're wrong to state that the only reason those views have been discarded is because of their ties with the Holocaust. In light of the clearer picture we have of evolution, they simply don't make sense anymore. Africans are not "less evolved" than Europeans, they are simply adapted differently. The only reason Europe had an advantage is that it was easier to domesticate; when food, shelter and clothing are no longer needs that have to be worried about daily, the door is open for technological advancement, which allowed Europeans to overcome the native adaptations of the areas the conquered.

Today, genocides have occurred and are occurring in the name of Christ because someone is misusing faith for evil purposes. By your logic above, this simple fact should discredit Christianity entirely. I believe differently - Christianity is a tool for good, evolution is simply a neutral fact, but both can be twisted by people with evil intentions to do Satan's work. Trying to invoke Godwin's law on evolution without admitting this is a dishonest tactic.

Reynolds357
Oct 7th 2008, 07:26 PM
For people who believe in evolution, don't they also have to believe that some races are more evolved than another if they are to be intellectually honest in their belief? No evolutionist would admit to this, but this is what they must believe if they are consistent.

Anyone else feel this?






Charles Darwin believed this. His book "Origin of the Species" had a slightly longer title during its first printing. It was called "Origin of the species and preservation of Favoured races."

But what does Charles Darwin know about evolution? To be perfectly "honest," evolution is a very racist theory. Darwin believed the darker your skin, the less evolved your race was.

This is one reason I think the entire theory of Evolution is Evil. God created us all in His image.

crawfish
Oct 7th 2008, 07:52 PM
It has to be admitted, from a sociological point of view, that the idea of "superior races" arose from the "nature red in tooth and claw" philosophy that came from Darwinism.

Yeah, right.

He hath overthrown the chief of the Nubians, the black is helpless, defenseless in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the curly-haired who can come attack him. There is not a single survivor among them. The Nubian troglodytes fall by the sword and are thrust aside in their lands. Their foulness, it floods their valley and their mouths like a violent flood, the fragments cut from them are too much for the birds, carrying off the prey to another place. - Pharaoh Thutmose I

"The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery." - Aristotle

That is just two quotes to point out that racial stereotyping has existed for a long, long time. Why did the 16th and 17th centuries explode into more explicit forms of racism? I'd argue it had more to do with the explosion of world travel and trade rather than a theory.


Christians historically believed, as the Bible states, that God "made of one blood all nations of men ... to dwell on all the face of the earth, and ... determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Eugenics and other forms of modern racism really and truly are the fruit of Darwinism.

What the bible says and what has been taught have been vastly different over the ages. Evolution is also hardly the only science that has been used for doing evil; however, that does not change any underlying truths. What is, is what is.

daughter
Oct 7th 2008, 08:06 PM
Those quotes are not divinely inspired, and not from the Bible. Therefore I fail to see how they are relevant here. The Bible has always indicated that God created all humans in His image. What do the misconceptions of a pharoah (who thought he was a god) have to do with this discussion? We are talking about how evolution is incompatible with Bible truth, not with how evolution is a new twist on the prejudice of previous generations of unregenerate sinners.

crawfish
Oct 7th 2008, 08:45 PM
Those quotes are not divinely inspired, and not from the Bible. Therefore I fail to see how they are relevant here. The Bible has always indicated that God created all humans in His image. What do the misconceptions of a pharoah (who thought he was a god) have to do with this discussion? We are talking about how evolution is incompatible with Bible truth, not with how evolution is a new twist on the prejudice of previous generations of unregenerate sinners.

Again,


It has to be admitted, from a sociological point of view, that the idea of "superior races" arose from the "nature red in tooth and claw" philosophy that came from Darwinism.

I was merely debunking the above quote. The idea of racial superiority has been around for thousands of years. Which you seem to admit yourself above in your response.

And it's not incompatible with biblical truth, its application at times has been incompatible with biblical truth. Evolution is no more evil than gravity or nuclear reactions or inertia; it is simply a cataloging of observed phenomena.

Luke34
Oct 8th 2008, 05:30 PM
To follow up on that, saying that evolution is invalid because it's "racist" is committing the logical fallacy of association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). Evolution is not racist because people have used it to support racist ideas, any more than conservatism is evil because people have used it to support gunning-down-a-Unitarian-church ideas. The tenets of evolution--certain alleles increase an organism's chances of survival, and these alleles have a better chance of surviving and spreading through a population than do deleterious or neutral ones--are quite obviously not racist, and it is disingenuous to say so.

Also, accusing something of racism is not a correct way to demonstrate that it is untrue.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 12:20 AM
The same way I deal with people who claim that God blesses some races over others. By claiming that they are speaking beyond their understanding, and they are wrong.

Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, and even since 1940. They were as subject to the biases and stereotypes of their time as we are, and there is no question that some of that bias seeped into their work. However, I would strongly argue that you're wrong to state that the only reason those views have been discarded is because of their ties with the Holocaust. In light of the clearer picture we have of evolution, they simply don't make sense anymore. Africans are not "less evolved" than Europeans, they are simply adapted differently. The only reason Europe had an advantage is that it was easier to domesticate; when food, shelter and clothing are no longer needs that have to be worried about daily, the door is open for technological advancement, which allowed Europeans to overcome the native adaptations of the areas the conquered.

Today, genocides have occurred and are occurring in the name of Christ because someone is misusing faith for evil purposes. By your logic above, this simple fact should discredit Christianity entirely. I believe differently - Christianity is a tool for good, evolution is simply a neutral fact, but both can be twisted by people with evil intentions to do Satan's work. Trying to invoke Godwin's law on evolution without admitting this is a dishonest tactic.


Nice strawman!

Instead, however, what I was actually arguing is that evolution does provide a premise and justification for racism. One does not need to twist evolutionary theory in order to justify racist attitudes, one merely need to use evolutionary theory. Naturalistic evolution does not offer a remedy to racism and even worse can fully justify racism.

Christianity, however, must be twisted with certain parts ignored or thrown out in order for racism to be justified.

Apples and oranges.

Lamplighter
Oct 9th 2008, 07:27 AM
Racism

In The Descent of Man (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/), Charles Darwin wrote:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.In an 1871 address, Thomas Henry Huxley said:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man… It is simply incredible [to think] that … he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.

Lamplighter
Oct 9th 2008, 07:30 AM
It is one thing to believe in evolution, it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms — like the phrase flaming snowflakes — but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest, most inefficient system for creation imaginable…

The most significant consequence, however, is that [evolution] undermines the very foundation of Christianity. If indeed evolution is reflective for the laws of science, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of Scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall.

daughter
Oct 9th 2008, 08:46 AM
Anyway... let's move on from the racial angle, and look at another problem for evolution.

Feathers.

When I went to school I was informed (and obviously believed, the teacher wouldn't be wrong after all) that feathers evolved from scales. I was told that scales were "very much like" feathers.

Have you ever looked at feathers under a microscope and compared them with scales? They are not at all alike. Scales are relatively simple, whereas feathers are made up of hundreds of interlocking hooked barbules, attached to barbs. Scales are shed in a long strip, whereas feathers are shed in symetrical pairs.

How could evolution turn a functioning scale into a functioning feather (more complex) without the scales, at some point, ceasing to function as scales, and the "feathers" at some point not functioning as feathers? According to evolution there must have been some creature, mid scale, mid feather, walking around for generations, with no evolutionary advantage to being in this midway point. How could it have survived in it's disabled state to become the ancestor of feathered things?

The Preacher
Oct 9th 2008, 11:00 AM
The same way I deal with people who claim that God blesses some races over others. By claiming that they are speaking beyond their understanding, and they are wrong.

Don't post on this link if you don't want this illusion shattered.
The only way I can account for this is the blessings and curse Noah gave to his heirs. It is upsetting but perhaps someone can post an adequate scientific rebuttal. I am not well know here so I want to post disclaimer that i am not a racist. However,being a Caucasian it's not all good news for me either:

Created equal :http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
Not Black and White:http://www.slate.com/id/2190573/:o

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 12:36 PM
Nice strawman!

Instead, however, what I was actually arguing is that evolution does provide a premise and justification for racism. One does not need to twist evolutionary theory in order to justify racist attitudes, one merely need to use evolutionary theory. Naturalistic evolution does not offer a remedy to racism and even worse can fully justify racism.

Christianity, however, must be twisted with certain parts ignored or thrown out in order for racism to be justified.

Apples and oranges.

What is true is true. Evolution isn't, and shouldn't be, a system of morality. And as Luke34 said, the simple matter that it can be used to justify racism doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And my argument stands. It is not a strawman. The bible is a big, complicated book. There are thousands of differing opinions on what it says, thousands of "brands" of Christianity. It is inevitable that some will take on unsavory beliefs, interpreting the scripture in a way that feeds their own hatred and bias. Because religion in general demands from many a strong, unquestioning faith, it becomes a powerful tool for those who would manipulate others to get them to commit acts that they could not commit otherwise.

In the end, you must take a step out of context to use either to commit acts of racism.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 01:44 PM
It is one thing to believe in evolution, it is quite another to blame God for it. Not only is theistic evolution a contradiction in terms — like the phrase flaming snowflakes — but as we have seen, it is also the cruelest, most inefficient system for creation imaginable…

Theistic evolution - not the belief in evolution, but the scriptural mindset - is the only consistent way I've found to approach scripture. OEC and Gap theory require a misreading of Genesis 1; YEC works well scripturally if you remove most of the bible between Exodus and Matthew (and some of the rest), but it falls apart as a consistent way to interpret scripture. Only the "TE" approach to scripture - as a literary creation, with the spiritual message taking precedence over the delivery of scientific and historical information - allows us to consistently read the scripture without adding to it to make sense of things.

As to the last part, well - God's chief concern hasn't always been efficiency. A God who doesn't feel the effects of time obviously won't be too concerned how long things take.

I think you are seeing evolution wrong, anyway - itis an AMAZING thing. It allows life to be resiliant versus the external forces that threaten it. Evolution is not about death; it is about life, and survival.It allows a wonderful the diversity we experience in the world. It even allows us (though domestication) to tame and alter the world to our purposes.


The most significant consequence, however, is that [evolution] undermines the very foundation of Christianity. If indeed evolution is reflective for the laws of science, then Genesis must be reflective of the flaws of Scripture. And if the foundation of Christianity is flawed, the superstructure is destined to fall.

Creationism - and YEC in particular - forces you into certain beliefs that must be true for your overall picture to be true. The nature of Eden, the fall, the world, the universe, creation itself. It is circular reasoning at its finest. The belief forces the interpretation which justifies the belief. Without that initial assumption scripture still works. Beautifully, in fact.

daughter
Oct 9th 2008, 01:46 PM
Feathers, anyone...?

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 01:54 PM
Anyway... let's move on from the racial angle, and look at another problem for evolution.

Feathers.

When I went to school I was informed (and obviously believed, the teacher wouldn't be wrong after all) that feathers evolved from scales. I was told that scales were "very much like" feathers.

Have you ever looked at feathers under a microscope and compared them with scales? They are not at all alike. Scales are relatively simple, whereas feathers are made up of hundreds of interlocking hooked barbules, attached to barbs. Scales are shed in a long strip, whereas feathers are shed in symetrical pairs.

How could evolution turn a functioning scale into a functioning feather (more complex) without the scales, at some point, ceasing to function as scales, and the "feathers" at some point not functioning as feathers? According to evolution there must have been some creature, mid scale, mid feather, walking around for generations, with no evolutionary advantage to being in this midway point. How could it have survived in it's disabled state to become the ancestor of feathered things?

Feather evolution is undoubtedly incomplete. We have found many stages of feathers in the fossil record (five, I believe) which suggest a progression, and we have found dinosaur fossils (definitely reptilian) with feathers. While this might cause problems with evolutionary theorists, it also had to cause problems with ID theorists because no creature from those "transitional fossils" exists today.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 02:02 PM
Don't post on this link if you don't want this illusion shattered.
The only way I can account for this is the blessings and curse Noah gave to his heirs. It is upsetting but perhaps someone can post an adequate scientific rebuttal. I am not well know here so I want to post disclaimer that i am not a racist. However,being a Caucasian it's not all good news for me either:

Created equal :http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
Not Black and White:http://www.slate.com/id/2190573/:o

Two things science will show you: one, there are definite differences (and advantages) among the different races of man. Some are evolutionary, some are environmental, some are sociological/cultural. Two, it would be a mistake to judge any individual by the trends associated with #1, because those are trends only and not absolutes.

And your mentioning of Noah is exactly the problem religion has with race. You're assigning a Holy edict to the differences between the races, making it that much easier to justify discrimination (not you specifically, but there are those who do).

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 02:33 PM
What is true is true. Evolution isn't, and shouldn't be, a system of morality. And as Luke34 said, the simple matter that it can be used to justify racism doesn't mean that it isn't true.

And my argument stands. It is not a strawman. The bible is a big, complicated book. There are thousands of differing opinions on what it says, thousands of "brands" of Christianity. It is inevitable that some will take on unsavory beliefs, interpreting the scripture in a way that feeds their own hatred and bias. Because religion in general demands from many a strong, unquestioning faith, it becomes a powerful tool for those who would manipulate others to get them to commit acts that they could not commit otherwise.

In the end, you must take a step out of context to use either to commit acts of racism.

They're on different grounds. Whether you like it or not, evolution has taken its place on the step-stool of philosophy as a metaphysical statement and deals with ontology on a daily basis. Likewise, it has made its move into the realm of epistemology as well. Since both of these find their way into practice concerning morality, evolution has been set up to where it has to account for morality as well. That's what you get when you make evolution a total system like atheists and Theistic evolutionists do.

In light of this, there is no escaping this one fact - evolution justifies racism. One does not need to take anything out of context to ensure that evolution - as a total system of metaphysics and epistemology - justified racism.

Now, if we knocked evolution down a notch to where we admitted that it only explained the how behind some physical things, it then loses its status as a metaphysical and epistemological belief and, therefore, no longer enters the realm of morality. The racism charge is dropped in this case.

The fact is, however, because it occupies both of those levels you have to look at its implications on morality and one of those implications is that it's completely neutral on the issue of racism and, in fact, leans toward promoting it.


As for your attempt at equivocation - you should probably give it up. The Bible - true Christian beliefs - have certain metaphysical beliefs and ontological beliefs (i.e. God exists, Humans are made in His image, all are viewed as equal in His sight) and epistemic beliefs (i.e. we can know ethics, we can know what is good) and even speaks out against racism that it's literally impossible for one to come to racist conclusions within Christianity without first having committed a heresy somewhere along the way.

When someone comes to racist conclusions after reading the Bible, that is called misinterpretation. When someone comes to racist conclusions after studying evolution as a metanarrative, that is called following the evidence.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 05:59 PM
As for your attempt at equivocation - you should probably give it up. The Bible - true Christian beliefs - have certain metaphysical beliefs and ontological beliefs (i.e. God exists, Humans are made in His image, all are viewed as equal in His sight) and epistemic beliefs (i.e. we can know ethics, we can know what is good) and even speaks out against racism that it's literally impossible for one to come to racist conclusions within Christianity without first having committed a heresy somewhere along the way.

When someone comes to racist conclusions after reading the Bible, that is called misinterpretation. When someone comes to racist conclusions after studying evolution as a metanarrative, that is called following the evidence.

So...religion is cleared of its heresy, but science is not? When Christianity is misused it's just "bad religion", but when science is misused it's because it's responsible? Rest assured, when you start making sociological decisions based on an incomplete understanding of scientific

The facts are, heresy is as unavoidable in religion as it is in science. BOTH give you justifications for discrimination, and both give you plenty of reasons that you shouldn't discriminate. Why you demand that science hold a higher standard than religion is beyond me.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 06:03 PM
So...religion is cleared of its heresy, but science is not? When Christianity is misused it's just "bad religion", but when science is misused it's because it's responsible? Rest assured, when you start making sociological decisions based on an incomplete understanding of scientific

The facts are, heresy is as unavoidable in religion as it is in science. BOTH give you justifications for discrimination, and both give you plenty of reasons that you shouldn't discriminate. Why you demand that science hold a higher standard than religion is beyond me.

Again with the Strawman and equivocation!

Where did I implicate "science" in this matter? Can you quote where I attacked science?

Instead, I attacked evolution as a system of metaphysics and epistemology - when we use it to explain metaphysics and epistemology, it inherently ends up in ethics.

You can keep along this same line of argumentation, but you're not even close to touching my argument.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 06:45 PM
Again with the Strawman and equivocation!

Where did I implicate "science" in this matter? Can you quote where I attacked science?

Instead, I attacked evolution as a system of metaphysics and epistemology - when we use it to explain metaphysics and epistemology, it inherently ends up in ethics.

You can keep along this same line of argumentation, but you're not even close to touching my argument.

It's only because you're making assumptions I do not hold. You have turned evolution into something larger in scope than science dictates, and thus your argument is only valid under that viewpoint. It's as if I was arguing that Christianity was no longer theological because it has expanded thought into the realms of science, history and philosophy.

This is where I usually ask for clarification on which parts of evolutionary theory are considered science and which parts metaphysical/epistemological. This is also where I'm usually not answered with any clarity, or at all. I trust you'll correct that. :)

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 07:12 PM
It's only because you're making assumptions I do not hold. You have turned evolution into something larger in scope than science dictates, and thus your argument is only valid under that viewpoint. It's as if I was arguing that Christianity was no longer theological because it has expanded thought into the realms of science, history and philosophy.

This is where I usually ask for clarification on which parts of evolutionary theory are considered science and which parts metaphysical/epistemological. This is also where I'm usually not answered with any clarity, or at all. I trust you'll correct that. :)

To the first part - Christianity is a total system. It deals with science, history, and philosophy. It is not purely theological, but instead touches every area of life including theology.

As for the part about evolution - whenever we attempt to say that evolution is what causes us to think the way we do, when we rely upon it for the explanation of human origins, and when we only use evolution as an explanation for the things in this life (such as why people act the way they do) we have pushed it into the realm of philosophy. As such, it gives credit to racism.

There is no ignoring that Darwin and many others of his time did this with evolution and that many people continue to do so today. I believe in evolution so far as it is solely in the confines of explaining how things happened and drops its presumptive "why."

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 09:04 PM
To the first part - Christianity is a total system. It deals with science, history, and philosophy. It is not purely theological, but instead touches every area of life including theology.

This is where you run into problems. I have no issue with admitting that a belief in God (and the bible as God's word) touches on said subjects; but it cannot, and should not, drive them. History is accurate in the bible - where it is meant to be historical. But exactly where and what is not always clear. Science is an afterthought in scripture as well - sometimes our universe is described in the human perspective of the time, thus you end up with ideas that aren't quite right from a stictly scientific standpoint but correct from a human one (the setting sun, for a simple example).


As for the part about evolution - whenever we attempt to say that evolution is what causes us to think the way we do, when we rely upon it for the explanation of human origins, and when we only use evolution as an explanation for the things in this life (such as why people act the way they do) we have pushed it into the realm of philosophy. As such, it gives credit to racism.

That's still not a clear answer, and it touches on little that is scientific about evolution. Is it scientific to detect patterns, trends and evidence and form theories about origins? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an evolutionary biologist that wouldn't agree that culture and society play a huge factor in the most of the racial differences we see. There are definitely physiological differences that can be attributed to environment, but this is clear: THERE IS NO MACROEVOLUTION REQUIRE TO EXPLAIN THEM. All of the racial changes fall within microevolutionary standards that the vast majority of ID proponents accept. There is little need for a belief in naturalistic evolution to justify racism based on the science.

Christianity is supposed to be the force that provides a moral compass to our scientific progress. I think the battle against evolution is forcing us from having the proper influence in that area, by making ALL of our influence devalued.

Again, you try to invalidate my argument and elevate yours by making assumptions that go beyond the point. Do scientists sometimes overstep its bounds? Sure, it does. Is its discoveries sometimes used for evil? No question. The same can be said for Christianity. Evolutionary science, that which is backed by evidence, is strong and well-supported. Christian faith, backed by proper interpretation, is a strong force for good. My point is no strawman.

Luke34
Oct 9th 2008, 09:14 PM
As for the part about evolution - whenever we attempt to say that evolution is what causes us to think the way we do, when we rely upon it for the explanation of human origins, and when we only use evolution as an explanation for the things in this life (such as why people act the way they do) we have pushed it into the realm of philosophy. As such, it gives credit to racism. You can't really refer to evolution by an "it" and claim that it makes philosophical claims, because the scientific theory of evolution, by definition, cannot be philosophical. It doesn't matter if various scientists have applied it to philosophical principles; it is fallacious to claim that this makes evolution racist.


I believe in evolution so far as it is solely in the confines of explaining how things happened and drops its presumptive "why." Again, scientific evolution itself can- and does not address philosophical questions of "why," etc., and the views of scientists don't change that.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 09:18 PM
This is where you run into problems. I have no issue with admitting that a belief in God (and the bible as God's word) touches on said subjects; but it cannot, and should not, drive them. History is accurate in the bible - where it is meant to be historical. But exactly where and what is not always clear. Science is an afterthought in scripture as well - sometimes our universe is described in the human perspective of the time, thus you end up with ideas that aren't quite right from a stictly scientific standpoint but correct from a human one (the setting sun, for a simple example).


To say that a belief in God shouldn't drive our understanding of history and science is the equivalent of saying He is co-equal to these things, but not above them.



That's still not a clear answer, and it touches on little that is scientific about evolution. Is it scientific to detect patterns, trends and evidence and form theories about origins?

No, it's not science at all. You can't do that with science - science can only make observations on what is, not on what it supposes "is." You can't use the system to determine what caused the system, that's simply illogical.


I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an evolutionary biologist that wouldn't agree that culture and society play a huge factor in the most of the racial differences we see. There are definitely physiological differences that can be attributed to environment, but this is clear: THERE IS NO MACROEVOLUTION REQUIRE TO EXPLAIN THEM. All of the racial changes fall within microevolutionary standards that the vast majority of ID proponents accept. There is little need for a belief in naturalistic evolution to justify racism based on the science.

No, one must hold to a belief in naturalistic or even theistic evolution in order to justify racism. That is all one needs. If it's simply micro then it shows that all humans have the same base starting point and that all the changes are caused by variables. If it is macro, then it shows that these changes can and will lead to different species, meaning that the differences are actually the beginning points of different species. This was the argument that everyone used prior to 1940. How are they wrong?

Again, you're ignoring the history on this as well. Probably because it proves you wrong...I don't know.


Christianity is supposed to be the force that provides a moral compass to our scientific progress. I think the battle against evolution is forcing us from having the proper influence in that area, by making ALL of our influence devalued.

Christianity is supposed to stand for Truth, even if that means contradicting modern "science."

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 09:20 PM
You can't really refer to evolution by an "it" and claim that it makes philosophical claims, because the scientific theory of evolution, by definition, cannot be philosophical. It doesn't matter if various scientists have applied it to philosophical principles; it is fallacious to claim that this makes evolution racist.

Again, scientific evolution itself can- and does not address philosophical questions of "why," etc., and the views of scientists don't change that.

Considering it came out of a philosophical viewpoint (Naturalism) and 1,000's of books have been written by scientists that address the evolutionary view of science...can you please begin to justify your claims?

Considering you can't escape that Darwinism has invaded every aspect of philosphy, psychology, government, economics, and so on, can you please back up what you're saying?

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 09:39 PM
To say that a belief in God shouldn't drive our understanding of history and science is the equivalent of saying He is co-equal to these things, but not above them.

No, it means there are things that God has chosen not to reveal but to let us discover on our own.



No, it's not science at all. You can't do that with science - science can only make observations on what is, not on what it supposes "is." You can't use the system to determine what caused the system, that's simply illogical.

You just eliminated 90% of what science is with that statement. And that viewpoint would eliminate most of the opportunities for science to actually make a difference in the future. You're limiting it to glorified butterfly collecting.


No, one must hold to a belief in naturalistic or even theistic evolution in order to justify racism. That is all one needs. If it's simply micro then it shows that all humans have the same base starting point and that all the changes are caused by variables. If it is macro, then it shows that these changes can and will lead to different species, meaning that the differences are actually the beginning points of different species. This was the argument that everyone used prior to 1940. How are they wrong?


Wow. So all I need to do is find one creationist who is racist to falsify your claim? I think that may occupy me for the next two minutes.

Nobody who understands genetics will claim that different human races are different species. There is not a single difference between you and an African or an Asian that can be attributed to macroevolution. To claim so is to ignore loads of science.

And I resent the implications to theistic evolution. Whatever the differences between us, we believe in the SAME God, Christ and plan of salvation for ALL human beings. We'd have to ignore one side in favor of the other. If we did that then you'd have to throw out the "theistic" part.


Again, you're ignoring the history on this as well. Probably because it proves you wrong...I don't know.

I'm ignoring the history because, in this case, it doesn't really matter. I don't CARE what Darwin thought - not even enough to correct you if you're wrong. I really don't care what some random nutcase out there thinks. I only care about truth.


Christianity is supposed to stand for Truth, even if that means contradicting modern "science."

It is supposed to. Sometimes it stands for "truth" that is neither supported by science or by God...and then it is damaging to both.

Lamplighter
Oct 9th 2008, 09:54 PM
To the first part - Christianity is a total system. It deals with science, history, and philosophy. It is not purely theological, but instead touches every area of life including theology.


You hit the nail on the head.

If the Bible is not 100% historically, scientifically, astrologically, geologically, and theological correct, then the whole thing is an evil lie. You can't claim that you believe Christ is the Son of God, and that he had the power to raise his mummified body from the grave, yet he does not have the power to create the entire universe the way the Bible states Christ did in both Genesis and John chapter one, and make the Bible out to still be accurate.

You can't have it both ways. Either Genesis is 100% correct, or the gospels are lies as well. Genesis is the very foundation of Christ's creation, and if it's a lie, then so is the resurrection of Christ.

You can't force modern 21st century Satan inspired Darwinistic principals of science into the Holy scriptures and make them out to be the truth. Darwin and his wicked theories are the polar opposite of Christ.

Either Christ is a liar, or Darwin is a liar, both can't be telling the truth, because both have polar opposite words and world views.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 10:09 PM
If the Bible is not 100% historically, scientifically, astrologically, geologically, and theological correct, then the whole thing is an evil lie.

Oh, really? So God didn't use metaphor? Idiom? Symbolism? Perspective? Simile? He never spoke in simple terms to less technologically-advanced peoples?

Well, brother, I won't go any farther because I don't want to hurt your faith. But I do pray that if your rigid stance causes you a crisis of faith someday, you'll talk to one of us. That's a task God has sent us here for.

Lamplighter
Oct 9th 2008, 10:20 PM
Oh, really? So God didn't use metaphor? Idiom? Symbolism? Perspective? Simile? He never spoke in simple terms to less technologically-advanced peoples?


Yes the Bible does use many different ways to communicate with language, but the Biblical account of creation is in no way corrupted by these different forms of language and communication. We are no smarter in the 21st century, then those people who lived in 6000 BC, but we do have better technology thanks to the plan of God for man in the last days. There are more retarded people in the 21st century, then there have been in the history of the World, so we are far dumber today, then the authors of the Bible ever were.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 9th 2008, 10:22 PM
No, it means there are things that God has chosen not to reveal but to let us discover on our own.

If He's not directing it, then it's equal or greater than Him. If something doesn't point back to Him in some way then it means something can happen without His direction, knowledge, or say-so - this would mean He isn't, by definition, God.


You just eliminated 90% of what science is with that statement. And that viewpoint would eliminate most of the opportunities for science to actually make a difference in the future. You're limiting it to glorified butterfly collecting.

Again, a strawman.

I said you can't use science to explain the origins of everything. You can't use the system to explain the origins of the system. This means scientists can make predictions so long as it is within a limited scope, but too often they are overstepping this limited scope. This is done mostly when discussing the origins of life.


Wow. So all I need to do is find one creationist who is racist to falsify your claim? I think that may occupy me for the next two minutes.

Again, strawman (you're good at those...seems it's the only way you can stay in this discussion).

I said the only way to JUSTIFY the claim is to accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. A 6 day creationist (btw, if you're not a creationist you're not a Christian) who is a racist can make the claim, but he's not justified in the claim according to proper Christian beliefs. A naturalistic evolutionary biologist that is racist is justified by his system in being a racist.



Nobody who understands genetics will claim that different human races are different species. There is not a single difference between you and an African or an Asian that can be attributed to macroevolution. To claim so is to ignore loads of science.

So everyone prior to 1940 was ignorant of science?

Just because there are genetic similarities doesn't mean a thing. As I stated, the different races - under a naturalistic view of evolution - are the beginning of different species.

Then again, "species" really is an arbitrary definition.


And I resent the implications to theistic evolution. Whatever the differences between us, we believe in the SAME God, Christ and plan of salvation for ALL human beings. We'd have to ignore one side in favor of the other. If we did that then you'd have to throw out the "theistic" part.

But you don't believe man was made in His image, thus you commit a heresy along the way. If you believe man is made in His image, then you have to drop certain tendencies within theistic evolution and go against science.

It puts you in a Catch 22.


I'm ignoring the history because, in this case, it doesn't really matter. I don't CARE what Darwin thought - not even enough to correct you if you're wrong. I really don't care what some random nutcase out there thinks. I only care about truth.

Is it because you don't really understand the system of naturalism? I ask because you're ignoring the entire argument I'm making.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 10:33 PM
Yes the Bible does use many different ways to communicate with language, but the Biblical account of creation is in no way corrupted by these different forms of language and communication. We are no smarter in the 21st century, then those people who lived in 6000 BC, but we do have better technology thanks to the plan of God for man in the last days. There are more retarded people in the 21st century, then there have been in the history of the World, so we are far dumber today, then the authors of the Bible ever were.

I would agree that we're no wiser than they were then - wisdom being the practical application of knowledge to our lives. But we have a far keener view of how the world and universe works; from the atom to the nature of stars and galaxies, we have unlocked many mysteries of God's creation, and revealed many, many more. The lack of increased wisdom is definitely a problem, because with our increased ability to harness God's creation comes an increased need to use it in a moral and responsible fashion.

And I would argue that the biblical account of creation DOES obviously use many literary mechanisms that leave it open for a symbolic interpretation. Genesis 1-11 is written differently than the rest of the book. I fully believe it is a representation of creation, given in a way that was meaningful to the original audience's worldview and meaningful to us today. It is not a scientific truth but a representation of the truth of God's place - and ours - in creation.

*Hope*
Oct 9th 2008, 10:36 PM
I think one should use caution when speaking about evolution if they have little to no understanding about naturalism.....

crawfish
Oct 9th 2008, 11:46 PM
If He's not directing it, then it's equal or greater than Him. If something doesn't point back to Him in some way then it means something can happen without His direction, knowledge, or say-so - this would mean He isn't, by definition, God.

When did I say that He wasn't directing it, either directly or indirectly?


Again, a strawman.

I said you can't use science to explain the origins of everything. You can't use the system to explain the origins of the system. This means scientists can make predictions so long as it is within a limited scope, but too often they are overstepping this limited scope. This is done mostly when discussing the origins of life. As long as said prediction is testable and falsifiable, it is within the realm of science. Making a claim that cannot be falsified goes into the realm of metaphysics. Evolution is, and has been, falsifiable since its inception.


Again, strawman (you're good at those...seems it's the only way you can stay in this discussion).

I said the only way to JUSTIFY the claim is to accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. A 6 day creationist (btw, if you're not a creationist you're not a Christian) who is a racist can make the claim, but he's not justified in the claim according to proper Christian beliefs. A naturalistic evolutionary biologist that is racist is justified by his system in being a racist. I was merely using your own words. For the record, your argument is a strawman, as was the OP. We're banging 'em together and seeing which one stays stuffed longer, obviously.

Again, one would only be justified in their own mind. The theory doesn't support it - especially the macro parts (IMO it implies the exact opposite).

And yes, I am a creationist in the sense that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I am NOT a YEC, OEC or gap theorist. I am not a creationist in the politically-charged sense that it is thrown around by those on both sides of this issue.


So everyone prior to 1940 was ignorant of science?

Just because there are genetic similarities doesn't mean a thing. As I stated, the different races - under a naturalistic view of evolution - are the beginning of different species.

Then again, "species" really is an arbitrary definition. The progress of science has revealed even more strongly that racial bias is inherently illogical.



But you don't believe man was made in His image, thus you commit a heresy along the way. If you believe man is made in His image, then you have to drop certain tendencies within theistic evolution and go against science.

It puts you in a Catch 22.

Patently false and, quite frankly, insulting. It's statements like that that make me realize you might not understand us at all.


Is it because you don't really understand the system of naturalism? I ask because you're ignoring the entire argument I'm making.I'm not a naturalist. But you're not just aiming at naturalists. You seem to be making a point of that.

The Preacher
Oct 9th 2008, 11:59 PM
Two, it would be a mistake to judge any individual by the trends associated with #1, because those are trends only and not absolutes.

I don't think that was the point of the study. I don't think anyone here is even suggesting that. The question I am asking is if you think God uses genetics and environment to develop the specific traits he want in certain groups.

I refuse to use the term "race"because I believe there is only one race. The human race.

Lamplighter
Oct 10th 2008, 12:59 AM
I refuse to use the term "race"because I believe there is only one race. The human race.

Correct. There is indeed only one Ademic race of men, with different levels of melanin in their skin according to where they have lived for thousands of years. This is proven by modern genetics. This is another modern scientific proof that Darwin's theories on mankind are garbage, but Darwin did not know about melanin, because he was a 19th century man. If Darwin were alive today to see modern genetics, then he would never have come up with his racist theories on the origin of mankind.

Luke34
Oct 10th 2008, 01:48 AM
Considering it came out of a philosophical viewpoint (Naturalism) and 1,000's of books have been written by scientists that address the evolutionary view of science...can you please begin to justify your claims? Modern evolutionary theory didn't result from philosophical naturalism (I believe Darwin was still a Christian when he formulated the theory; he later became agnostic for non-evolution-related reasons), it resulted from Darwin's observations of and subsequent theories about scientific evidence.

But again, it doesn't matter, because even if evolutionary theory had originated in philosophy, the claims it now makes are certainly not philosophical in nature, and so it wouldn't have anything to do with the scientific truth or falsity of evolutionary claims.

And it also does not matter what philosophic ideas scientists glean from evolutionary theory: There is not a single "metaphysical" application of evolutionary principles that could make the actual scientific theory false. Someone could write a book called Why Evolution Means We Should Torture Puppies, and the theory itself would still be as true as ever.


Considering you can't escape that Darwinism has invaded every aspect of philosphy, psychology, government, economics, and so on, can you please back up what you're saying? What I said above. No matter how repulsive or incorrect the non-scientific application of evolutionary principles, the principles themselves remain exactly the same.

Luke34
Oct 10th 2008, 01:54 AM
If Darwin were alive today to see modern genetics, then he would never have come up with his racist theories on the origin of mankind. Did you know that Darwin's evolutionary theories require and predict a hereditary mechanism like, say, genes, which were unknown when Darwin wrote? Exactly like them, in fact?

Because they do.


Correct. There is indeed only one Ademic race of men, with different levels of melanin in their skin according to where they have lived for thousands of years. This is proven by modern genetics.
"Race" can mean (http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/R0003900.html) either "A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics," "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution," or "Humans considered as a group," so it's kind of ridiculous to say it's incorrect to use the word in any but one of its senses.

And it's obviously and demonstrably false to say that the only physical difference between the races is skin color. Caucasians and Asians have the same skin color, and they're quite easy to distinguish from one another.

Oh and hey, you know what process causes a group to develop alleles for more or less melanin over time?

Lamplighter
Oct 10th 2008, 01:58 AM
Did you know that Darwin's evolutionary theories require and predict a hereditary mechanism like, say, genes, which were unknown when Darwin wrote? Exactly like them, in fact?

Because they do.

:confused You lost me with this one?

Are you saying that Darwin knew about modern genetics, without knowing what they were himself? He's a man out of time so to speak? Thanks.

Luke34
Oct 10th 2008, 02:09 AM
Are you saying that Darwin knew about modern genetics, without knowing what they were himself? Well, yes, in a way. For Darwin's theory to work at all, there has to be a hereditary mechanism which can change through random mutation, and in which that mutation can then be passed on through generations. Heredity was not well-understood at Darwin's time (another evolutionary theory posited that acquired characteristics could be passed on--for example, if one giraffe had gained a long neck by stretching it over a lifetime, then passed the long-necked trait on to his children. This is obviously impossible in the light of genetics), but when genetics were discovered they worked exactly as Darwin's theory needed them to.

Lamplighter
Oct 10th 2008, 02:13 AM
Well, yes, in a way. For Darwin's theory to work at all, there has to be a hereditary mechanism which can change through random mutation, and in which that mutation can then be passed on through generations. Heredity was not well-understood at Darwin's time (another evolutionary theory posited that acquired characteristics could be passed on--for example, if one giraffe had gained a long neck by stretching it over a lifetime, then passed the long-necked trait on to his children. This is obviously impossible in the light of genetics), but when genetics were discovered they worked exactly as Darwin's theory needed them to.

You do realize that genetic mutations are a loss of genetic information, and not a gaining of genetic information, right?

Darwin didn't know this.

crawfish
Oct 10th 2008, 02:46 AM
You do realize that genetic mutations are a loss of genetic information, and not a gaining of genetic information, right?

Darwin didn't know this.

Not true. Gene duplication means that more genes are available to describe ancestors over time.

And, I think you're missing Luke's point. Darwin had no idea - could have had no idea - about genetics. Yet, his theories required something very akin to genetics to work. When we began deciphering DNA, it was a dangerous time for the theory of evolution; if they did not exhibit certain characteristics, it would invalidate the entire theory. Amazingly, though, what they showed coincided with exactly what Darwin predicted.

So your assertion is wrong; genetics did not undo Darwin's ideas, they strengthened them tenfold (at least).

Lamplighter
Oct 10th 2008, 03:26 AM
So your assertion is wrong; genetics did not undo Darwin's ideas, they strengthened them tenfold (at least).

Modern Genetics show us that there are no various levels of evolved men(aboriginal to white) as Darwin stated. Genetics make Darwin look the fool.

Luke34
Oct 10th 2008, 06:05 AM
Modern Genetics show us that there are no various levels of evolved men(aboriginal to white) as Darwin stated. Can you provide the exact quote you're referring to here?

In any case, if the differences between races are due to evolution from a common ancestor (and they are), and if all the races didn't evolve at the exact same time (and it is impossible that they did), it necessarily follows that some races are more recent than others. Not "better," certainly; and the differences are tiny. But it is nevertheless true.

crawfish
Oct 10th 2008, 12:18 PM
Modern Genetics show us that there are no various levels of evolved men(aboriginal to white) as Darwin stated. Genetics make Darwin look the fool.

Do you also think modern astonomy makes Copernicus and Galileo look like fools? Darwin wasn't a god or a prophet, he was simply a scientist theorizing about what he observed around him. And he got it pretty close - where modern science he couldn't even envision still supports his ideas. That's pretty strong science.

Biastai
Oct 10th 2008, 12:29 PM
Darwin never claimed to refute creation in his Origin of Species. If he did, wouldn't he title his book Origin of Life?

Near the end of his book (which is a great read), he confesses that there was an event that preceded all he explained through which "life was first breathed" into the world. That's an actual quote from the book.

That said, the passages cannot be taken literally of course. But remember, these passages are orally passed traditions recorded in writing very late in their transmission.

Jeffinator
Oct 14th 2008, 02:47 AM
Do you also think modern astonomy makes Copernicus and Galileo look like fools? Darwin wasn't a god or a prophet, he was simply a scientist theorizing about what he observed around him. And he got it pretty close - where modern science he couldn't even envision still supports his ideas. That's pretty strong science.

Darwin was not a by any means a scientist..he was a theologian..he liked coming up with theories for things, he has other material for read that wasn't popular cuz it wasnt true. Sometimes i ask evolutionist the simplest of questions that they cant answer yet they like the complex questions cuz they like complex answers. Like, if evolution designed an eye how did this mystic, random, spontaneous, unintelligent method that knows nothing say one day, "hey i dont know what seeing is, i dont know why it would be important, nor do i know how its done, but im gonna start making it." Evolutionists call it adaptation or becoming more complex to better survive in the environment, yet if this animal or microbe never had an eye before and has been surving w/ out one why would it think it needed one now? If evolution really occured this way where an organism simply just got things out of wanting them or "adapting them" then all animals would be super unbeatable animals. Ill give you another example, my dad lifts weights, his dad used to lift, and then his dad used to be a body builder. This goes back many years in my family. Yet when i was born i was not born a super hulk cuz of my dads family. Yet evolution would say i would have to be larger than my dad at my age cuz he lifted and adapted which would have passed on to me. Not true and in every generation in my fam you dont see super men with huge arms. CUZ YOU CANT START 'ADAPTING' AND CHANGE UR GENES. No matter how much you want it too it just doesnt happen. Evolutionist like to throw years at you and say "if given this amount of time it could happen"...ahhhh wrong. You can stick a box of cake mix an oven for 14 billion years, there still wont be a cake all readily made with frosting when you open it up.

fishbowlsoul
Oct 14th 2008, 04:10 AM
Darwin was not a by any means a scientist..he was a theologian..he liked coming up with theories for things, he has other material for read that wasn't popular cuz it wasnt true. Sometimes i ask evolutionist the simplest of questions that they cant answer yet they like the complex questions cuz they like complex answers. Like, if evolution designed an eye how did this mystic, random, spontaneous, unintelligent method that knows nothing say one day, "hey i dont know what seeing is, i dont know why it would be important, nor do i know how its done, but im gonna start making it." Evolutionists call it adaptation or becoming more complex to better survive in the environment, yet if this animal or microbe never had an eye before and has been surving w/ out one why would it think it needed one now? If evolution really occured this way where an organism simply just got things out of wanting them or "adapting them" then all animals would be super unbeatable animals. Ill give you another example, my dad lifts weights, his dad used to lift, and then his dad used to be a body builder. This goes back many years in my family. Yet when i was born i was not born a super hulk cuz of my dads family. Yet evolution would say i would have to be larger than my dad at my age cuz he lifted and adapted which would have passed on to me. Not true and in every generation in my fam you dont see super men with huge arms. CUZ YOU CANT START 'ADAPTING' AND CHANGE UR GENES. No matter how much you want it too it just doesnt happen. Evolutionist like to throw years at you and say "if given this amount of time it could happen"...ahhhh wrong. You can stick a box of cake mix an oven for 14 billion years, there still wont be a cake all readily made with frosting when you open it up.

Obviously man you haven't pick up a biology textbook up in a while.

Darwin was at one time a theologian but as most theologians were back then he was a scientist in the rudimentary sense and he definitely was a naturalist in that he was interested in the study of different species.

Evolution of the eye has been discussed ad hominem before needless to say there is observation and theory to support the evolution of the eye.

You know you have adapted or changed your genes just by being born. You are similiar but not the same as either of your parents. You are 50% of both. Nothing in evolution says that your dad lifting weights will cause you to be naturally or genetically bigger. Some genetic change would have to occur like your mom's family being naturally taller and heavier.
Plus you only listed 3 or 4 generations or about 100 years. Evolution takes a lot longer than that.

Which brings me to you last point about 14 billion years and your cake analogy. Seems like the crux of problem YECers have with evolution, big bang, etc is time. YECers believe the earth/universe to be only a few thousand years old so there is not enough time for all the adaptations or changes to occur. But if enough microevolutions occur over a long period of time that adds up to macroevolutions from which new species emerge. There is certainly no scientific evidence for the earth/universe being only 6000 years old. And not even good biblical foundation for that idea. All scientific evidence points to a ~4.5 billion year old earth and ~15 billion year old universe.

As for your cake analogy, remember there is just no one "cake" being made at one particular time. There are many "cakes" being made at many different times. Evolution is not linear in that one thing is not just happening at one particular time.

God bless

Jeffinator
Oct 14th 2008, 05:23 AM
Fishbowlsoul,


You said: Darwin was at one time a theologian but as most theologians were back then he was a scientist in the rudimentary sense and he definitely was a naturalist in that he was interested in the study of different species.


At one time he was a theologian? I dont think he ever stopped being one. Listen im not hackin on the guys intellect at all. What i am saying is that people define him as one now bc of his work yet if his work was utterly proven useless no one would consider him a scientist. People adjust the past to fit the needs of today. Dont change the past.

You said: Evolution of the eye has been discussed ad hominem before needless to say there is observation and theory to support the evolution of the eye.

Your missing the point. It is easy to observe something in motion but why it came to motion is the question. If someone from the future found a primitive computer they could probably round up a bunch of scientists to expongiate a reason as to how it came to be. Most, if not all, of which would just be a bunch swings in the dark. But what do they care as long as their getting paid right? Point being its easy to prove a theory with a set of other theories. Science only uses so much fact before they run out.

You said: You know you have adapted or changed your genes just by being born. You are similiar but not the same as either of your parents. You are 50% of both. Nothing in evolution says that your dad lifting weights will cause you to be naturally or genetically bigger. Some genetic change would have to occur like your mom's family being naturally taller and heavier.
Plus you only listed 3 or 4 generations or about 100 years. Evolution takes a lot longer than that.

Well than that just proves my point even farther. If a freak mutation occured, which is what i was taught how much of the evolution occured, then that gene would not last bc it was only one generation. According to ur explanation thats not enought "time" to make an evolutionary impact. In fact it got so bad to the point that most scientist are turning to "explosion gaps" in which animals evolved at rapid times for no reason cuz theres no explanation. Its easy to point at animals with similar genes or features and say they are related to some "distant relative" in fact thats the answer you get for every question scientists face. What did the family get mad and kick the outkasts out?

You said: Which brings me to you last point about 14 billion years and your cake analogy. Seems like the crux of problem YECers have with evolution, big bang, etc is time. YECers believe the earth/universe to be only a few thousand years old so there is not enough time for all the adaptations or changes to occur. But if enough microevolutions occur over a long period of time that adds up to macroevolutions from which new species emerge. There is certainly no scientific evidence for the earth/universe being only 6000 years old. And not even good biblical foundation for that idea. All scientific evidence points to a ~4.5 billion year old earth and ~15 billion year old universe.

Actually theres is more proof for the young earth seeing how the moon moves away from the earth a few inches a year, so if you trace it back say 6000 to 10000 years its still in a perfect orbital spot. If you trace it back a few million years it collides with the earth and if you trace it back billions of years..well you get the point..doesnt add up. Or the fact that given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young. These are just a few off the top of my head. Could probably look up a list of a bunch more if really wanted to. Besides all that doesnt matter bc the most significant occurrences in the bible occurred by faith alone even when others couldn't explain what they saw, such as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons. And the people said he was casting out demons with the help of demons, cuz they looked for answers that although made sense at the time weren't true to help explain something they couldnt under stand.

You said: As for your cake analogy, remember there is just no one "cake" being made at one particular time. There are many "cakes" being made at many different times. Evolution is not linear in that one thing is not just happening at one particular time.

Ok well we will test your theory and put a million cake boxes in a million ovens and see how many come out all decorated with your name in the frosting.

crawfish
Oct 14th 2008, 02:36 PM
Darwin was not a by any means a scientist..he was a theologian..he liked coming up with theories for things, he has other material for read that wasn't popular cuz it wasnt true.

Centuries ago, pretty much all scientists were theologians; because the only scientific training you could get was through the church. The two actually got along quite well except when scientists claimed ridiculous things such as evolution and the earth revolving around the sun.


Sometimes i ask evolutionist the simplest of questions that they cant answer


Go ahead, I hate to see your questions unanswered.


yet they like the complex questions cuz they like complex answers. Like, if evolution designed an eye how did this mystic, random, spontaneous, unintelligent method that knows nothing say one day, "hey i dont know what seeing is, i dont know why it would be important, nor do i know how its done, but im gonna start making it."


Well, it's not mystical, spontaneous or random, according to evolutionary theory. And sight provides such a big advantage over non-sight that it's no shock that it would develop over millions of years.


Evolutionists call it adaptation or becoming more complex to better survive in the environment, yet if this animal or microbe never had an eye before and has been surving w/ out one why would it think it needed one now?

Adaptation occurs to help a species survive. Things to do not stay the same; as a predator begins to dominate an environment, the prey will "adapt" to this by developing traits that help it survive. The predator will also adapt to this new situation in a way to help it deal with those new traits. And then the cycle goes over and over again. Not to mention, environments rarely stay the same. A perfect ecosystem will be forced into dramatic change during an ice age, or a heat wave, or a drought. Again, things change constantly, and adaptation is an INCREDIBLE tool God invented to help His creation deal with it.


If evolution really occured this way where an organism simply just got things out of wanting them or "adapting them" then all animals would be super unbeatable animals.

No. An animal adapts to deal with its current situation, not all possible situations. Say, for instance, a certain moth lives in the desert and adapts into a brownish color to camouflage itself from predators. Years later, some of those moths migrate into a forest where their color stands out; over time, they adapt by changing to a greenish color. Note that the latter adaptation will work against them if they go back to the desert; they're not developing into some "super-animal" safe in all environments, but are developing into separate groups, each of which is adapted to its own current environment.


Ill give you another example, my dad lifts weights, his dad used to lift, and then his dad used to be a body builder. This goes back many years in my family. Yet when i was born i was not born a super hulk cuz of my dads family. Yet evolution would say i would have to be larger than my dad at my age cuz he lifted and adapted which would have passed on to me. Not true and in every generation in my fam you dont see super men with huge arms. CUZ YOU CANT START 'ADAPTING' AND CHANGE UR GENES. No matter how much you want it too it just doesnt happen.


It's a little bit more complicated than this. Genes are carried from many generations on many sides. Were there weakling men on your mom's side of the family, or your grandma's? The gene that allows the development of huge muscles might be in you but you're not taking advantage of it by pumping iron.

Anyway, you should believe in adaptation like this anyway. We have "guided evolution" by breeding dogs, cats and cattle, we've adapted to create breeds as diverse as chihuahuas and great danes from common canine ancestors. That would be impossible if what you say is true.


Evolutionist like to throw years at you and say "if given this amount of time it could happen"...ahhhh wrong. You can stick a box of cake mix an oven for 14 billion years, there still wont be a cake all readily made with frosting when you open it up.

A box of cake is not self-replicating, which makes your statement invalid. You have to be able to produce offspring for evolution to take effect.

crawfish
Oct 14th 2008, 02:42 PM
Actually theres is more proof for the young earth seeing how the moon moves away from the earth a few inches a year, so if you trace it back say 6000 to 10000 years its still in a perfect orbital spot. If you trace it back a few million years it collides with the earth and if you trace it back billions of years..well you get the point..doesnt add up. Or the fact that given the rate at which cosmic dust accumulates, 4.5 billion years would have produced a layer on the moon much deeper than observed. By implication, the earth is also young. These are just a few off the top of my head. Could probably look up a list of a bunch more if really wanted to. Besides all that doesnt matter bc the most significant occurrences in the bible occurred by faith alone even when others couldn't explain what they saw, such as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons. And the people said he was casting out demons with the help of demons, cuz they looked for answers that although made sense at the time weren't true to help explain something they could under stand.

If your faith demands that you believe in a young earth, then by no means do I wish to upset that. But the evidence dictates by a long shot that either the universe is far, far older than that, or God created it to seem that way.

Jeffinator
Oct 14th 2008, 05:00 PM
Its not so much a faith issue for me, its just that I'm the type of person to seek what really is the truth and to be perfectly honest i have take many classes at my university w/ many liberal professors and they all have different ideas about how things came to be. It really just doesn't add up. Its easy to pile up facts about evolution when you ignore the contradictions in it. PS. check out the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" pretty wicked stuff about young earth and some myths and lies about old earth which are passed as true for the simple reason that evolutionary scientists get PAID to come up with "new evidence" for evolution, the other scientists both christian and non consider their "evidence" a joke. Also try looking up info bout the bombardier beetle, a beetle in which if it is changed in any way, such as removing a leg or a genetic change it explodes in a noxious fiery gas. Well how would that evolve if when it gets changed it explodes. I know some of you try combining evolution and the bible so you can have your cake and eat it too. You want to not be mad when you hear the liberal media say something about evolution and just play it off like "yea, God probably did that". Try talking to God and asking Him to point you in the right direction.

crawfish
Oct 14th 2008, 05:31 PM
Its not so much a faith issue for me, its just that I'm the type of person to seek what really is the truth and to be perfectly honest i have take many classes at my university w/ many liberal professors and they all have different ideas about how things came to be. It really just doesn't add up. Its easy to pile up facts about evolution when you ignore the contradictions in it. PS. check out the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" pretty wicked stuff about young earth and some myths and lies about old earth which are passed as true for the simple reason that evolutionary scientists get PAID to come up with "new evidence" for evolution, the other scientists both christian and non consider their "evidence" a joke. Also try looking up info bout the bombardier beetle, a beetle in which if it is changed in any way, such as removing a leg or a genetic change it explodes in a noxious fiery gas. Well how would that evolve if when it gets changed it explodes. I know some of you try combining evolution and the bible so you can have your cake and eat it too. You want to not be mad when you hear the liberal media say something about evolution and just play it off like "yea, God probably did that". Try talking to God and asking Him to point you in the right direction.


I saw expelled when it first came out. It is full of logical holes and outright deceptions; I suggest you don't try and study its claims too deeply, or you might be disappointed. You should also realize that ID in its pure form does not deny an old earth.

I don't believe in evolution for any reason other than the preponderance of data supports it. I believe that Genesis 1-11 fully supports being read in a non-literal way that has no conflicts with evolution. In the end, it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not; God is sovereign regardless.

Athanasius
Oct 14th 2008, 05:39 PM
Its not so much a faith issue for me, its just that I'm the type of person to seek what really is the truth and to be perfectly honest i have take many classes at my university w/ many liberal professors and they all have different ideas about how things came to be. It really just doesn't add up. Its easy to pile up facts about evolution when you ignore the contradictions in it. PS. check out the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" pretty wicked stuff about young earth and some myths and lies about old earth which are passed as true for the simple reason that evolutionary scientists get PAID to come up with "new evidence" for evolution, the other scientists both christian and non consider their "evidence" a joke. Also try looking up info bout the bombardier beetle, a beetle in which if it is changed in any way, such as removing a leg or a genetic change it explodes in a noxious fiery gas. Well how would that evolve if when it gets changed it explodes. I know some of you try combining evolution and the bible so you can have your cake and eat it too. You want to not be mad when you hear the liberal media say something about evolution and just play it off like "yea, God probably did that". Try talking to God and asking Him to point you in the right direction.

I think you're forgetting that we're all Christians here, regardless of our beliefs about God's method of creation. If I believe God used evolution (and by this I mean macroevolution), I'm not going to be damned to eternal conscious punishment. Likewise, if I believe God created everything in six literal days, I'm not going to have a better position on the new earth. You're going to have to - dare I say it - be a little more accepting of the 'other side'. Don't hear what I'm not saying, just ask Crawfish: I'm in no way any sort of progressive creationist or theistic evolutionist.

The bombardier beetle, if you've not seen Richard Dawkins television demonstration (a good couple decades ago), will not explode in a noxious fiery gas if you change some part of its inner working and its chemicals some how mix. If you're going to argue irriducible complexity then I'd suggest you do such a thing on the genetic level, rather than the 'macro' level. People use flaggelum all the time, though. So I would be careful of that.

In regard to the different beliefs of university professors regarding the origins of the universe, I would ask the question, and? What of the many Christians who believe in progressive creationism, young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution? Do things "not add up" because we have a difference of opinion? Not at all.

I don't agree with the idea that God used evolution as the means of creation for theological reasons (not scientific), but at the same time I wouldn't accuse these people of wanting to eat their cake and have it at the same time: I'll leave that up to Christopher Hitchens.

Jeffinator
Oct 15th 2008, 06:59 PM
I believe that evolution has struck an all time high only because its the popular and seems to be the smart thing to say and do. This isnt the first time there are examples of this in the bible.

Acts 27
Now when much time had been spent, and sailing was now dangerous because the Fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 saying, “Men, I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives.” 11 Nevertheless the captain as more persuaded by the helmsman and the owner of the ship (and sailors) than by the things spoken by Paul. 12 And because the harbor was not suitable to winter in, the majority advised to set sail from there also, if by any means they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete opening toward the southwest and northwest, and winter there .

15 So when the ship was caught, and could not head into the wind, we let her drive. 16 And running under the shelter of an island called Clauda,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=27&version=50#fen-NKJV-27866b)] we secured the skiff with difficulty. 17 When they had taken it on board, they used cables to undergird the ship; and fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=27&version=50#fen-NKJV-27867c)] Sands , they struck sail and so were driven. 18 And because we were exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day they lightened the ship. 19 On the third day we threw the ship’s tackle overboard with our own hands. 20 Now when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest beat on us , all hope that we would be saved was finally given up.

Majority means size not always smart. So what is going on here? Paul the only spiritual one on the boat saying that they shouldnt go but stay yet the owner of the ship and the captain and sailors who are "smarter and know the sea better" said it was ok to go. Then the ship hit difficulty like paul said and much was lost. So just bc the "smart" ppl seem to saying something doesnt mean it should be adhearently followed but should be checked with the word of God for He knows all things.

teddyv
Oct 15th 2008, 07:35 PM
I believe that evolution has struck an all time high only because its the popular and seems to be the smart thing to say and do. This isnt the first time there are examples of this in the bible.

Acts 27
Now when much time had been spent, and sailing was now dangerous because the Fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 saying, “Men, I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss, not only of the cargo and ship, but also our lives.” 11 Nevertheless the captain as more persuaded by the helmsman and the owner of the ship (and sailors) than by the things spoken by Paul. 12 And because the harbor was not suitable to winter in, the majority advised to set sail from there also, if by any means they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete opening toward the southwest and northwest, and winter there .

15 So when the ship was caught, and could not head into the wind, we let her drive. 16 And running under the shelter of an island called Clauda,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=27&version=50#fen-NKJV-27866b)] we secured the skiff with difficulty. 17 When they had taken it on board, they used cables to undergird the ship; and fearing lest they should run aground on the Syrtis[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=27&version=50#fen-NKJV-27867c)] Sands , they struck sail and so were driven. 18 And because we were exceedingly tempest-tossed, the next day they lightened the ship. 19 On the third day we threw the ship’s tackle overboard with our own hands. 20 Now when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest beat on us , all hope that we would be saved was finally given up.

Majority means size not always smart. So what is going on here? Paul the only spiritual one on the boat saying that they shouldnt go but stay yet the owner of the ship and the captain and sailors who are "smarter and know the sea better" said it was ok to go. Then the ship hit difficulty like paul said and much was lost. So just bc the "smart" ppl seem to saying something doesnt mean it should be adhearently followed but should be checked with the word of God for He knows all things.
I would think Paul's words are a case of prophecy which doesn't seem quite equivalent to what's be discussed in this thread. Unless you are suggesting that creationist arguments are prophetic in nature.:confused

Cheers.

Jeffinator
Oct 15th 2008, 08:08 PM
I would think Paul's words are a case of prophecy which doesn't seem quite equivalent to what's be discussed in this thread. Unless you are suggesting that creationist arguments are prophetic in nature.:confused

Cheers.

Your missing the point, the word of God should be checked and listened too before we go off and make our own decisions about what to do or what we think. And sometimes we listen to the media and think well evolution must be true cuz everyone seems to agree with it even some scientists. But like in this case the majority and the smartest people upon the ship tried using their own knowledge rather than listening to God's and they turned out to be wrong and lost their lives. Just saying majority doesnt always mean smart. How many times in history has a majority decision been made and then we looked back and said "but who was the majority that made that decision?" Were they a majority who was after the spirit or after the flesh? just saying be careful, be aware for whats popular to say now may not always be true in the future. So dont try changing the word of God to fit your needs and opinions right now, but just take the bible at face value for what it is and believe that.

Athanasius
Oct 15th 2008, 08:35 PM
I believe that evolution has struck an all time high only because its the popular and seems to be the smart thing to say and do. This isnt the first time there are examples of this in the bible.

Majority means size not always smart. So what is going on here? Paul the only spiritual one on the boat saying that they shouldnt go but stay yet the owner of the ship and the captain and sailors who are "smarter and know the sea better" said it was ok to go. Then the ship hit difficulty like paul said and much was lost. So just bc the "smart" ppl seem to saying something doesnt mean it should be adhearently followed but should be checked with the word of God for He knows all things.

You ever heard of the argument from common consent? It goes both ways: all cultures of all times have believed in a 'god', or some sort of god, therefore, it's likely that such a god exists. The majority of highly educated scientists believe in the evolutionary process, therefore, it's like such an event has taken (and takes) place. Now, just because the majority believe it doesn't mean they're right... But it also doesn't mean they're wrong.

In the case of the scripture you posted, I've yet to see a prophet proclaim that evolution is anti-God, so there's really no comparison.


Your missing the point, the word of God should be checked and listened too before we go off and make our own decisions about what to do or what we think. And sometimes we listen to the media and think well evolution must be true cuz everyone seems to agree with it even some scientists. But like in this case the majority and the smartest people upon the ship tried using their own knowledge rather than listening to God's and they turned out to be wrong and lost their lives. Just saying majority doesnt always mean smart. How many times in history has a majority decision been made and then we looked back and said "but who was the majority that made that decision?" Were they a majority who was after the spirit or after the flesh? just saying be careful, be aware for whats popular to say now may not always be true in the future. So dont try changing the word of God to fit your needs and opinions right now, but just take the bible at face value for what it is and believe that.

I like to call that the fallacy of equivocation: in the past the majority have believed the wrong then, therefore the majority still believe the wrong thing. What comprises the "majority" - scientists in the West or billions of Christians? No one's changing the word of God, by the way.

crawfish
Oct 15th 2008, 09:37 PM
So dont try changing the word of God to fit your needs and opinions right now, but just take the bible at face value for what it is and believe that.

The temptation here is to post verses where the obvious reading defies reality. Is the earth fixed and unmovable? Is it set on pillars? Is pie equal to 3? Is a mustard seed truly the smallest seed? Is there a mountain where you could see every single kingdom on earth at the time of Jesus? And on and on.

However, I suspect we could go through each example and you'd give reasons like these: "obviously, God didn't mean that to be taken literally." "It is poetry." "You're taking the verse out of perspective." Which are, truly, all great arguments. The reason that you'd accept them, however, is because you know that they cannot be literal. With that alternative gone it is fairly easy to take the symbolic viewpoint.

Think about it this way: if you read that the earth is fixed in scripture (1 Chron 16:30) and don't know about the motion of the planets from a scientific standpoint, then what would you assume? Would you KNOW that that passage was not literal, or would you accept that the earth must be fixed in space because that's what scripture implied? And if the latter, was it scripture that "lied" to you or was it you that misinterpreted scripture?

We all, to a certain point, "compromise" the integrity of scripture by not taking some things literally. (Although that it's not really compromise because some scripture was not written to be taken literally.) There are scriptures that we apply to science and those that we do not. The question is, at what point on the scale are we? If a purely literal reading is on the right and a purely symbolic reading is on the left, then I am probably just slightly to the left of where you are at.

Jeffinator
Oct 16th 2008, 04:03 AM
The temptation here is to post verses where the obvious reading defies reality. Is the earth fixed and unmovable? Is it set on pillars? Is pie equal to 3? Is a mustard seed truly the smallest seed? Is there a mountain where you could see every single kingdom on earth at the time of Jesus? And on and on.

However, I suspect we could go through each example and you'd give reasons like these: "obviously, God didn't mean that to be taken literally." "It is poetry." "You're taking the verse out of perspective." Which are, truly, all great arguments. The reason that you'd accept them, however, is because you know that they cannot be literal. With that alternative gone it is fairly easy to take the symbolic viewpoint.

Think about it this way: if you read that the earth is fixed in scripture (1 Chron 16:30) and don't know about the motion of the planets from a scientific standpoint, then what would you assume? Would you KNOW that that passage was not literal, or would you accept that the earth must be fixed in space because that's what scripture implied? And if the latter, was it scripture that "lied" to you or was it you that misinterpreted scripture?

We all, to a certain point, "compromise" the integrity of scripture by not taking some things literally. (Although that it's not really compromise because some scripture was not written to be taken literally.) There are scriptures that we apply to science and those that we do not. The question is, at what point on the scale are we? If a purely literal reading is on the right and a purely symbolic reading is on the left, then I am probably just slightly to the left of where you are at.

Thats the worst part of it all, DONT COMPROMISE, a religious person compromises and spiritual person seeks truth. As far as Chron 16:30 goes you take it all wrong, your first thought is that its refering to the sense that the sun moves and earth is stable. Not what it said, it meant that the earth is the center of the universe called Geocentricity which has descended from the ancient notion of geocentrism, or the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. And according to the red shift theory it actually appears that we are the center of the universe, or as close to it as your gonna get and i doubt thats a "coincidence". As far as Pi equaling 3 you must be refering to I Kings 7:23-26 where hes describing a circular sea of cast metal made. Now the Hebrews were not an especially technological society; when Solomon built his Temple he had to hire Phoenecian artisans for the really technical work. So the author of this passage may not have known the exact value of pi, or thought his readers might not be aware that specifying the diameter of a circle automatically specifies its circumference. Or how the mustard seed isnt techiniquelly the smallest seed but please note that Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local farmers. And it's absolutely true that the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world. might have "sowed in his field," i.e., a key qualifying phrase in. It's important to remember that the Bible often uses everyday terminology in order to communicate simple truth. Even today, we might refer to a "sunset" when, technically, scientifically, we know that the sun never actually 'sets,' i.e., it's the earth that revolves. If you took simple talk today wrote it down and put it in the bible people would think that were stupid and ignorant but the truth is that to get a point across Jesus wasnt going to explain every molecule that their was, He was there for salvation not to impress ppl in 2008 about how much He knows about the earth's basic breakdown structure. I think you need to use your heads.

crawfish
Oct 16th 2008, 01:24 PM
Thats the worst part of it all, DONT COMPROMISE, a religious person compromises and spiritual person seeks truth. As far as Chron 16:30 goes you take it all wrong, your first thought is that its refering to the sense that the sun moves and earth is stable. Not what it said, it meant that the earth is the center of the universe called Geocentricity which has descended from the ancient notion of geocentrism, or the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe. And according to the red shift theory it actually appears that we are the center of the universe, or as close to it as your gonna get and i doubt thats a "coincidence". As far as Pi equaling 3 you must be refering to I Kings 7:23-26 where hes describing a circular sea of cast metal made. Now the Hebrews were not an especially technological society; when Solomon built his Temple he had to hire Phoenecian artisans for the really technical work. So the author of this passage may not have known the exact value of pi, or thought his readers might not be aware that specifying the diameter of a circle automatically specifies its circumference. Or how the mustard seed isnt techiniquelly the smallest seed but please note that Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local farmers. And it's absolutely true that the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world. might have "sowed in his field," i.e., a key qualifying phrase in. It's important to remember that the Bible often uses everyday terminology in order to communicate simple truth. Even today, we might refer to a "sunset" when, technically, scientifically, we know that the sun never actually 'sets,' i.e., it's the earth that revolves. If you took simple talk today wrote it down and put it in the bible people would think that were stupid and ignorant but the truth is that to get a point across Jesus wasnt going to explain every molecule that their was, He was there for salvation not to impress ppl in 2008 about how much He knows about the earth's basic breakdown structure. I think you need to use your heads.

You're making my point for me (see paragraph 2). I still say: the only reason you have to justify these plain passages is because you know better than to take them literally. If you didn't know of a seed smaller than a mustard seed, then you'd get onto me for claiming it wasn't the smallest. You'd get onto me for not taking the geocentric view if you didn't know better as well. (And, for the record, the only reason we "appear" in the center of the universe is our perspective. All matter appears to be moving away from a common place which is far from us.)

Now: take your bolded statement and apply it to Genesis 1-11. Understand that they were written about events 2,000+ years before the authors lived. Could they not also be written using the everyday terminology of the day, using pre-scientific, then-contemporary ideas about the nature of the world around them to explain the very simple truth of God's and man's place in creation?

I'm not compromising anything. All I'm doing is reading God's Word in light of what God reveals through His creation, which demands a change in scope from what had been accepted for a few thousand years. A scope that was not originally intended. We're not the first to do so, and I think we probably won't be the last.

Jeffinator
Oct 16th 2008, 04:40 PM
You're making my point for me (see paragraph 2). I still say: the only reason you have to justify these plain passages is because you know better than to take them literally. If you didn't know of a seed smaller than a mustard seed, then you'd get onto me for claiming it wasn't the smallest. You'd get onto me for not taking the geocentric view if you didn't know better as well. (And, for the record, the only reason we "appear" in the center of the universe is our perspective. All matter appears to be moving away from a common place which is far from us.)

Now: take your bolded statement and apply it to Genesis 1-11. Understand that they were written about events 2,000+ years before the authors lived. Could they not also be written using the everyday terminology of the day, using pre-scientific, then-contemporary ideas about the nature of the world around them to explain the very simple truth of God's and man's place in creation?

I'm not compromising anything. All I'm doing is reading God's Word in light of what God reveals through His creation, which demands a change in scope from what had been accepted for a few thousand years. A scope that was not originally intended. We're not the first to do so, and I think we probably won't be the last.

Well then i guess no one can prove anything to you about the bible that you dont wanna believe cuz you will just keep saying that they are "justifying" something that you DONT wanna believe. Instead of looking at things and going into depth of why they said certain things they said, you wanna take it at face value and say "that doesnt make sense", there are a lot of things in history to which at the time when we discovered them didnt make sense. And it wasnt until further understanding that we made sense of them and it did work out logically. But bc they couldnt use scientific calculators you hold it against em as to why they ddnt know much. They were aware stars moved and understood constallations which is how they actually knew harvest seasons were coming, give em more credit. As far as Genesis goes, it was written so that every man could understand God's word. I mean think about it, the people of that time had trouble understanding Jesus's parables about the kingdom of heaven. Imagine if on top of that He was using scientific talk to explain it to them. He knows going to the kingdom of God is more important than teaching them how far the sun is from the earth so thats what He spent His time teaching that, and that alone was troubling for people there. Jesus died around 33 years of age, thats not very old at all and He knew that He wasnt going to live long so why waste His time on nonsense like what the earth is made of, when salvation is key and most important. He coulda talked about scientific mumbo jumbo which He had no way to prove to them and waste His time and their time. And i do think God cares about how we take Genesis, heck if i created the universe in 7 days and a bunch of kuckle heads with calculators thought they knew better than me id be kinda mad too. I think some people disagree with the bible, no matter on what topic in it, and do so cuz God hasnt explained it well enough. Like how homosexuality is an abomination, yet people say "well i just dont agree with that part cuz God hasn't explained it well enough". Oh well sorry that the lord almighty didnt express his word well enough to you and sat down and asked your opinion on the subject. Point being that your right, most people compromise, but that doesnt make it any better.

crawfish
Oct 17th 2008, 02:51 AM
Well then i guess no one can prove anything to you about the bible that you dont wanna believe cuz you will just keep saying that they are "justifying" something that you DONT wanna believe. Instead of looking at things and going into depth of why they said certain things they said, you wanna take it at face value and say "that doesnt make sense", there are a lot of things in history to which at the time when we discovered them didnt make sense.

You cannot use the bible properly and justify anything you want. What you can do is study the bible critically, not simply accepting what has been taught before, in the light of new discoveries. At one point, all man's knowledge showed that it was equally plausible for the sun to rotate around the earth or the earth to rotate around the sun; those things being equal, it would only make sense to accept the former because biblical language would seem to support it. When it became obvious that the latter was true, what was required was a re-evaluation of the biblical text to determine if a) the text was simply wrong, or b) if it had been misinterpreted. Since the text could easily be read in a way that precluded assumption of geocentricism, our faith was not accepted.

My point is: history has forced us to rethink the literalness of pieces of scripture many times. Science has revealed to us the true nature of God's creation as well, which has led us further into the true nature of God's word. You cannot force the literalness with which you want to read Genesis 1-11 on the rest of the bible and expect it to work; you simply cannot remain consistent. You cannot "protect" some scripture from literary criticism.

I have found that Genesis 1-11 does not have to be literal to be true. I think that its style and substance allows for a purely allegorical reading which says nothing about the methods of creation or the time it took. As a result, evolution and big bang theory become nothing; they have no effect on faith or Christianity or the existence of God whatsoever.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 17th 2008, 12:47 PM
They were aware stars moved and understood constallations which is how they actually knew harvest seasons were coming, give em more credit.

Stars don't move, the earth rotates.


I think some people disagree with the bible, no matter on what topic in it, and do so cuz God hasnt explained it well enough.

We do not reject the Bible, we have a different interpretation.


Well then i guess no one can prove anything to you about the bible that you dont wanna believe cuz you will just keep saying that they are "justifying" something that you DONT wanna believe.

Our interpretation of Genesis is one that can harmonize the account with science while still learning profound theological truth.