The Mountain Retreat

Biblical Discussions => Apologetics => Topic started by: Blade on June 11, 2003, 08:06:16 AM

Title: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Blade on June 11, 2003, 08:06:16 AM
Can one be a christian and believe in evolution? The reason I ask is that there are very few christians who do not believe in evolution, so if it is true that Christians don't believe in evolution, then there aren't many christians are there?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that christians can believe in evolution. Because that makes the whole history of Genesis a lie. That makes it a lie that there was Adam and there was eve in a garden. What do you think?

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Jeff on June 11, 2003, 12:26:44 PM
There is the doctrine of christian evolution that is starting to make headway in the church. It's a mix of evolution, but done by God. Theistic evolution is how they justify it. That God creatred everything, but he did it by evolution over a long period of time. Even many orthodox christians now believe this. Especially reformed.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on June 11, 2003, 02:09:20 PM
I don't  see how anyone can claim to be a Christain and believe that this world and the creatures in it were created any other way than that recorded in the Bible.

There is also confusion between creation, as recorded in Genesis, and the built-in mechanisms and abilities that God provided from the beginning, that enable creatues to adapt to their environments.  This is sometimes referred to I believe as 'micro evolution' -- a term which can be misleading because a frog still remains a frog, even though there are different varieties that have adapted over time to their unique environments in order to survive.

Christains who try to reconcile the world's view with God's view, only end up corrupting the Word of God and themselves.  This type of  'joiniing' with the world, is the reason why God refers to such churches and so called Christians as 'harlots', who in the end will come to ruin.
The 'church', symbolized as a harlot, can be found many places in Scripture.  One of the most graphic is found in Ezekial 16, where apostate churches not only 'open their feet' to every worldly passerby, but do so at no charge,  in an attempt to satisfy their unsatiable appetite for fleshly/worldly things, forsaking their true calling and all that God has given them:

Ezek 16:14-41

14 And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.
15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was....
17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,...
22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood.
23 And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee! saith the Lord GOD;)...
25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.
26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.
27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.
28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.
30 How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord GOD, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman;
31 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire;
32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!
33 They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom....
35 Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD:
36 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;...
38 And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy.
39 And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare...
41 And they shall burn thine houses with fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more.



Let God be true, but every man a liar.(Rom 3:4)

judy

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: matt205 on June 12, 2003, 08:43:44 AM
Judy, You are so right about that. I'm wondering what can we do to help teach that evolution in any form is an assult on God's creation. I know that only God can reveal truth, but since education by the media has taught people this lie, wouldn't education by the church against it bring many back to right thinking?

 Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Or are we simply in a time when God has given us up to these things?
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Rebel on June 12, 2003, 12:30:16 PM
Quote
I'm wondering what can we do to help teach that evolution in any form is an assult on God's creation. I know that only God can reveal truth, but since education by the media has taught people this lie, wouldn't education by the church against it bring many back to right thinking?

     If  all  Christians  did  their  homework  like  they're  s'posed  to  and  studied  the  Bible,  we  wouldn't  have  this  problem,  would  we?  But  many  of  us  just  want  to  take  other  people's  word  for  it  and  not  check  it  out  in  the  Bible  and  that's  why  we've  got  such  crazy  notions  going  around.  By  the  time  someone  comes  along  with  the  truth  it's  too  late.  I  guess  we  could  probably  help  slow  down  the  spread  of  false  doctrine  by  encouraging  people  to  study  the  Bible  for  themselves  like  the  Bereans  did.  

     These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  
 Acts  17:11

     If you  study  the  Bible  long  enough  it  becomes  pretty  obvious  that  evolution,  no  matter  what  flavor  it  is,  is  false.  But  nobody  wants  to  study  the  Bible  anymore  because  it  is  "old,  outdated  .  .  ."  you  know.  But  God's  elect  know  that  the  Bible  never  grows  old!

     Grace  be  with  you  all,
                                           Rebel
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: bloodstone on June 12, 2003, 12:39:20 PM
I remember seeing a Christian creationist web site a while back that had a lot of articles debunking evolution both by the bible and by science. It was loaded with information and counter articles to the lies that come out. I lost the link. Anyone know what the site was?

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Christ_Alone on June 12, 2003, 12:47:10 PM
I remember seeing a Christian creationist web site a while back that had a lot of articles debunking evolution both by the bible and by science. It was loaded with information and counter articles to the lies that come out. I lost the link. Anyone know what the site was?



I could have been Answers in Genesis, or Kent Hovind's site.  I dont have either link handy, but they're easy enough to find in any decent search engine.

Human evolution is a load of horse pie - sadly - alot of Christians are taught that the Bible actually supports it.  :-\

Folks really do need to study their Bibles more.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on June 13, 2003, 02:38:25 AM
There is no such thing as evolution.We were created out of nothing by God ,to be inhabited by God,for God.You can put all the evidence you have on evolution in a coffin with plenty of room to spare.
andreas. 8)
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on June 13, 2003, 02:47:15 AM
Try:
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-humans.html
andreas. 8)
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: bloodstone on June 13, 2003, 07:34:40 AM
Try:
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-humans.html
andreas. 8)


Thanks Andreas, appreciate the link.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Blade on June 23, 2003, 05:40:22 PM
Can we find any evidence in the animal kingdom for a fire-breathing dragon?

Yes The Bombardier Beetle

The following description of one of God's fascinating creations was found in a book called The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse. Creatures like the bombardier beetle cause evolutionists to have cold sweats! Many other such examples are found in nature. They are reported in various books which critically investigate the evolutionary hypothesis. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with a shockingly impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212 degrees F. out from two tail pipes right into the unfortunate face of the would be aggressor.

 Dr. Wermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely. Whenever our beetle friend is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.

Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish "yes," but a brief consideration of this opinion will reveal its preposterous nature. According to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually. we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand. if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, let us assume that our little beetle friend somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all- important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must he added to the solution.

So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage until finally, the anti- inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah yes. he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers. But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense at all, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is astronomically improbable, if not impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder. (Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 78-79)
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformer on June 24, 2003, 08:04:49 AM
Blade, interesting post. Our God is a Glorious God isn't he. That's why scripture says that they (the unbelievers) have no excuse for their unbelief, because creation itself testifies to God.

 Ro 1:20  
  "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Layla on June 27, 2003, 02:46:33 PM
Greetings

I am posting this because I thought it was worthy reading.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

I hope you don't think just because I have posted an article with an opposing view that I am an evolutionist as I believe the Word of God as written is truth and that God is the creator of all things.  However, I found these thoughts from the author thought provoking as well as his conclusions:

"Some people's belief is that the bombardier beetle's defense, whether reflexive or not, shows God's purpose. But claiming to know the mind of God is a form of hubris. The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8) that we can't understand God's ways.

For many creationists, purpose leads to an inextricable contradiction. They say the beetle's defense mechanism was designed, but designed for what? They also say that death wasn't part of the original design, but came later with original sin [Morris, 1985, p. 211]. If the bombardier beetle's defense was part of the original creation, it had no purpose; if it came later, it wasn't designed. And the problem involves more than their defense mechanism. All bombardier beetles are predators, and are thus themselves agents of death. Even as larvae, they are predaceous; at least two species are ectoparasitoids of the pupae of other beetles, slowly devouring and ultimately killing their helpless hosts [Erwin, 1967]. Was that aspect of its life cycle designed with the rest of the beetle?"


Conclusions

"Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it. But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable. There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance.

Does evolution disqualify an intelligent designer? A lot of people reject the idea of evolution because they think it takes away any role for God to play in the creation of life. Such is the case, however, only for people who require God's role to fit certain narrow preconceptions of what "intelligent design" must mean. Millions of people around the world have no trouble believing in God and accepting evolution at the same time. Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.

Finally, remember that the general arguments used here apply to a lot more than bombardier beetles. Creationists have argued for an appearance of design in everything from bacteria flagella to butterfly metamorphosis. Those arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorace combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution. If a kind of design incompatible with evolution were found in biology, nobody would be more excited than the professional biologists. As yet we haven't found such a design."


Peace,
Layla
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: David Knoles on June 27, 2003, 03:14:33 PM
Quote
They also say that death wasn't part of the original design, but came later with original sin [Morris, 1985, p. 211]. If the bombardier beetle's defense was part of the original creation, it had no purpose; if it came later, it wasn't designed.

Well that's just plain stupid. excuse my bluntness. It's a straw dummy. God knew death was coming and gave the beatle a defense, that's all. God is not surprised by anything. Anyone who thinks that is just plan foolish. Just as he gave man the ability to feel pain and so know to remove his hand from the fire. This is not a good point, this man's reasoning is just plain stupid (in my view). Oh the great deceiver is always at work on the web.

 2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: David Knoles on June 27, 2003, 03:19:51 PM
Quote
I am posting this because I thought it was worthy reading.

Yeah, like the Athiests manual is worth reading, and the book of mormon is worth reading, and the catholic catechisms, and the book of death, the Koran, life of Ghandi, et al. they are all worth reading if you take God out of the picture, foreget about what the bible says, and think like the world.  )S_Confused(
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Layla on June 27, 2003, 04:58:09 PM
Greetings

The article, David, is not suggesting that there is no God nor denying that God is creator, nor that all is not of His design.  If you cared to read the conclusion, he is suggesting that the possibility exists for evolution after the creation.  In other words, are you suggesting that the landscape is exactly as it was the day of creation?  Think about it.

Is it that people are so weak in their faith that they cannot contemplate ideas that are outside of what they currently know or believe.  If you use the Word of God as your guide to testing all things, then we should fear nothing.

Peace,
Layla
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on June 27, 2003, 08:22:40 PM
Hi Layla,

I haven't read the full article, but want to comment on some of the excerpts you presented:

Article excerpt1:
Quote
Some people's belief is that the bombardier beetle's defense, whether reflexive or not, shows God's purpose. But claiming to know the mind of God is a form of hubris. The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8 ) that we can't understand God's ways.

The author is implying that those in support of creatism, profess to  'know the mind of God'.  This type of 'illogical' logic,  presumption, or whatever you want to call it, makes me want to grit my teeth.   It's a given that no one can fully know the mind of God.... what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?  :)

Also, the term 'evolution' can mean different things depending on how it's defined.  The 'built in' ability to adapt to environmental conditions over time was provided by God from the beginning (which is why we see wide varieties of the same species depending on things like location/climate, altitude, preditors, ecological system etc.   I think that this  type of adaptation is referred to as micro evolution,  which by no means denies God as the creator of all things.  This same time of 'natural change' can be seen in the  environment  &
landscape.  But this matter of new creations arising, or becoming something different from what it started out being, by some accident or chance, is a different matter altogether, which goes contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

From a scientific standpoint, the overriding flaw of the evolutionist viewpoint, is that  even the simpliest, smallest organism is so complex, that the chances of it coming into being by accident (without iintelligent design) is nill.  This is something that the earliest propronent of evolution did not understand ... they didn't understand the harmonious complexity of not only a single cell, but of even the atoms that make up a single cell, which falls outside the realm of chance.


Article except 2:
Quote
Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it. But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable. There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance.

This author seems to be forgetting that nothing recorded in the Bible has to be 'proved', it just 'is'.  Read carefully...., He's actually questioning whether or not God's Word is true.  Moreover evolution is not a fact (although some treat is as though it is),but merely a theory.  And like all scientific theories, the burden of proof is on those who expouse such theories... not the other way around.  I find it interesting also, that this man, who I find arrogant in his assertions, makes the charge of arrogance against  those who choose to believe that God's Word is true, and every man a liar. 

Although this man claims creatism and evolutoin can exist together (although it's not clear just what his definition of 'evolution' is) his comments all seem to be in defense of evolution. 
Based on the excepts presented,  this author reminds me of those 'luke warm' Christains who try to straddle the fence, as well as those who deny the Power of God:

Rev 3:15-16

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

1 Cor 2:4-5

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

2 Tim 3:4-7

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.



Excerpt 3:
Quote
Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.

Who does he think he's fooling?  What he's really saying is that he does not feel 'constraints' from what the Bible declares.    I wonder for example what he would do with such verses as these:

Heb 11:3, 6-8, 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. …

Isa 40:21, 26, 28

21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?  …
26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. …28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Eph 3:9

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col 1:16

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Rev 4:11

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


It's also clear what the underlying 'purpose' for all creation is -- for God's good pleasure.

As you know, there are numerous Scriptures of this nature.  I didn't even quote  from the book of Genesis, but let's make no mistake about it....  Being the self-centered creatures that we are, the focus of evolution has always centered around the origin of man. 

Layla, I want to make it clear, that I'm commening on the excerpts presented from this article, which bears no reflect on your beliefs, which you stated at the beginning of your post.  I think you would agree that 'thus saith the Lord' -- the authority of God's Word, take precedence over any man's 'worldly wisdom' or theories.

judy

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Baerchild on May 19, 2005, 10:23:47 PM
Dear MR,

We only need one reason:  It Is Not The Word Of God.

But nonetheless, here are some others.
=

25 Reasons to Doubt the Theory of Evolution

(With acknowledgement to Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation)

1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
"…a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these . organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design", not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3½-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.

11. Species are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.

15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".

16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.

17. Human speech and languages did not evolve; in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.

18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks; but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).

20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.

22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.

25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on May 20, 2005, 02:13:16 AM
<<<We only need one reason:  It Is Not The Word Of God.>>>


Hebrews 11:3,  says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

 The positive confession, "the worlds were made by the word of God," but also the negative, "so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." We believe the first: God made the world. We reject the second.
 We deny, by faith, that things made themselves, that things which are seen were made of things which do appear, that things evolved from other things.

andreas. 8)
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Beechwood on May 20, 2005, 04:28:09 AM

Here's the best reason of all. It doesn't make any sense! You have to have real blind faith to believe in evolution, because it just doesn't make sense that things more complex and self sustaining than a 200 billion dollar computer could create and improve themselves over time. It's just stupid!
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Baerchild on May 20, 2005, 11:31:18 PM

It's just stupid!

Beechwood,

Yes, we see this by The Grace of God...but those who are deluded actually think they're smart.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Even without context it sounds perfect to me.

Jim
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Raven Bloodrain on October 15, 2005, 10:32:43 PM
Hey guys,

I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?

Thanks for listening
Raven
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on October 16, 2005, 01:05:10 AM
<<<I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?>>>

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1:5

 And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the subsequent days, it must clearly define the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day.
 The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning in the Bible is always clear when read in context. The first reference to day in the Bible is in the context of a full rotation of the Earth, a full cycle of light and dark, "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day"

When the word day (yom) is used with a number,  it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. 

 The bible is meticulous in recording the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Abraham.We are told how old each was when his first child was born,how long each lived after the birth and when they died.
 
And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.  And Seth lived a hundred and five years and begat Enos .Genesis 5:3-6

Of Noah’s three sons,

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.Genesis 5:32.

 Although Shem the son in the covenant line is mentioned first, Japheth is described as the elder Genesis 10:21, so presumably Japheth was born when Noah was 500; Ham is called the younger. Genesis 9:24.   

 Shem was one hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood’.Genesis 11:10

 Shem was 100 in AM ( Ano Mundi)1658, and so would have been born AM 1558, when Noah was 502.

God is very precise about time.There is no biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis, than it is throughout the rest of the book.

His way of thinking is greater than your family's way of thinking, and His ways are greater than your family's ways..

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=112.0

andreas.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: dsouzaanthony on October 16, 2005, 03:56:10 AM
God is very precise about time.There is no biblical indication that "day" is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis, than it is throughout the rest of the book.  


No doubt Andreas. We know from Gen 1 that God created this world in 6 literal days and man was created on the 6h day, the 7th day being the Sabbath Day. The ages of patriarchs given in the Bible is precise. If the Bible says that Methuselah lived 969 years, it is exactly that.  God has given their ages on purpose. God has a timetable of His own as revealed in the Bible:

Eccl 3:1
3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
KJV

God Bless,

DSOUZAANTHONY
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on October 16, 2005, 12:28:13 PM
Hey guys,

I have a hard one for ya...at least it hard for me! In the bible when it discusses time reference to age, what is the time table then and now like? What I mean is, like Noah was very old I think like 700 years when he died and I have family that say their time table is different from ours...what I want to know is how different and why is it so different?

Thanks for listening
Raven


Raven,

In addition to andreas's response (which I agree with), it sounds like your question also deal with how long a man lives and why men of old lived much longer than men do today?  If so, I believe the reason goes back to two things... the curse that fell upon man and this earth with the Fall, as well as the changes that occured with the Flood. 

Before the Fall, everything was created perfectly and there was no death.

Gen 2:17 
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:17-19
17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

This 'death' was both physical and spiritual with the separation of God's Spirit, replaced with a 'sin nature' that all are born with.


It's interesting that Noah's name reflects the curse that was put on the earth, yet Noah was chosen to begin a new generation of men following the flood:

Gen 5:29 
And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.  


Consider also, that the world was a different placed prior to the flood when waters were released above and below the earth, killing all creatures save those in the ark. 

Gen 1:6-7
6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 6:12-13
12  And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:11 
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Although we can only speculate, with the release of waters above the 'firmament' there was perhaps less atmospheric protectection against the sun's damaging rays which we know attribute to aging.  And conditions after the Flood, coupled with sin, allowed for increasingly more types of diseases  Even in our day we hear about 'new' diseases such as AIDS, as consequence of sin.


Now Noah was 950 years when he died (600 years before the flood and 350 years afterwards (Gen 7:6, 9:28-29).  Thereafter, when the Bible records the ages of men when they die, we see an increasingly lower life-span:

Gen 11:10-32
10  These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11  And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12  And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13  And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14  And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15  And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16  And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17  And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.
18  And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19  And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
20  And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:
21  And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.
22  And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
23  And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
24  And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
25  And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters.
26  And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
27  Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28  And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.
29  And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.
30  But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31  And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
32  And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.  

So then we see... Shem lived to be 600 (350 less years than his father Noah),  down to Terah who lived to be 205 yeras.  And at some point, God established the average life-span of 70 years (which I can't seem to locate the verse for, so if someone does, please post it).

Men not only suffered physically and spiritually, but (it stands to reason) intellectually as well.  The evolutionist have it all backwards.

I hope this helps answer your question.

judy
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Raybob on October 16, 2005, 04:23:15 PM
Psa 90:10  The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

I've heard an explanation that made perfect sense.  Before the flood, the earth could have been surrounded by a solid canopy of ice (waters above the waters) and that the mist watered the ground so there was no rain before the flood.  With the earth surrounded by the ice canopy, the ice would give UV protection so aging took much longer.  Also with this canopy, the earth could have been like a hyperbaric chamber with the air pressure many times higher than what we have now.  Hyperbaric chambers are used to heal athletes quickly today.

Raybob
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Erik Diamond on October 16, 2005, 05:45:17 PM
Raybob,

Pre-Noahic people live longer because they did not have McDonald's and fast foods.   ::)

Yes, the "water canopy" was one of the reasons why many people live for a long time. It is pressuring down upon the atmosphere of our earth caused the blood cells in people and animals to function much more efficiently and age slowly. Not to mention better nutrient quality in the food they ate.

However, after the flood, when God used the water canopy as part of judgment, the canopy was gone. All mankind, plants, and animals decreased in size, stature, and lifespan.

Erik
 
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: whitedove on December 03, 2005, 03:55:24 PM
According to the Bible, God created Adam and then put him into a deep sleep and created Eve from Adams rib.  So, wouldn't Adam and Eve have the same DNA?    Another question is ...Cain was jealous and killed his brother, making him the first murderer in the world.  God was angry that Cain killed Abel and he told him he would send him out into the world and put a mark on him for everyone to see and to know what he had done.

My question is...who was "everyone"?   Where are these others mentioned in the Bible? Are we just to assume there were other Adams and Eves thoughout the world?

I am not trying to be a fresh in asking this..although I am a Christian, I have always wondered about this and also how to anwser another person who may ask ME those questions..  Since science has made this remarkable discovery about DNA, it certainly raises alot of questions.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on December 03, 2005, 11:32:37 PM
<<<According to the Bible, God created Adam and then put him into a deep sleep and created Eve from Adams rib.  So, wouldn't Adam and Eve have the same DNA?>>>

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Genesis 2:21-23

It is clear that God created Eve out of Adam, from tissue taken from his rib. I think the strong implication is that Eve was genetically identical to Adam except for her sex chromosomes.

In other words, Eve would have had all of Adam's chromosomes (and genetic material) except his Y chromosome. God would have simply doubled Adam's X chromosome to form a generative cell with which He made Eve.

andreas.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on December 04, 2005, 01:52:30 AM
Another question is ...Cain was jealous and killed his brother, making him the first murderer in the world. God was angry that Cain killed Abel and he told him he would send him out into the world and put a mark on him for everyone to see and to know what he had done.

My question is...who was "everyone"? Where are these others mentioned in the Bible? Are we just to assume there were other Adams and Eves thoughout the world?

Gen 4:12  When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13  And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14  Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Gen 4:15  And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Please note verse 14 - "it shall come to pass" refers to some future time.   Adam and Eve were formed perfectly (a far cry from men of today who are subject to diseases and birth defects), and were commanded to "multipy and replenish the earth".  And as you may know, in those days people lived to be hundreds of years old. 

Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So at some point, Cain would have married a relative.

Gen 4:16  And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

It was only after many generations at the time of Moses that marraige between close relatives was forbidden:

Lev 18:6  None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7  The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:8  The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 18:9  The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Lev 18:10  The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Lev 18:11  The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:12  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:13  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:14  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
etc.

judy



Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Sue Landow on December 04, 2005, 05:15:59 AM
Actually even the scientists are now saying that they have evidence in DNA that shows that all people are related having come from the same single source. Of course, they chalk it up to evolution, but it's interesting that years ago they were saying people evolved on many different levels and from different paths. Now they are forced to correct themselves and recognize that all people came from one single path and are related.

As for the other people, Adam and eve had many children, and the early people obviously intermarried. Because everyone on earth came from one source, Adam.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on December 04, 2005, 12:10:33 PM
Actually even the scientists are now saying that they have evidence in DNA that shows that all people are related having come from the same single source. Of course, they chalk it up to evolution, but it's interesting that years ago they were saying people evolved on many different levels and from different paths. Now they are forced to correct themselves and recognize that all people came from one single path and are related.

As for the other people, Adam and eve had many children, and the early people obviously intermarried. Because everyone on earth came from one source, Adam.


Thanks Sue for this type of information which slowly but surely exposes the farce of the evolution theory that tries to deny the Genesis account, and the fact that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all mankind.

Good, pure science will always be consistent with the teachings of the Bible. 

1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.  

judy
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Kenneth White on December 05, 2005, 03:37:13 AM
Sue and Judy are very correct about this. I saw this discussed on the discover channel about a year ago and decided to read up on it. Scientific research in the area of Genetics supports mitochondrial DNA, which shows that all human life evolved (evolved is their word) from one set of parents who the scientists theorize lived about 200,000 years ago. My first question would be, if they lived about 200,000 years ago, where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky?

Even now, many scientists are scrambling to either distance themselves from supporting this, or attempting to show how these new discoveries only mean that we evolved from a small group rather than one set of parents. They always find ways to justify throwing out sound findings when they don't like what it shows.

Now we know these parents didn't evolve, they were created and named Adam and Eve. And it wasn't 200,000 years ago either I would say. But Sue has hit the nail on the head saying this shows how they are forced to keep correcting themselves. Whenever something supports a Christian view, they chip away at it until there's nothing left. They are changing their theories all the time so as not to support any view of creation. Yet by the very facts they are coming up with, they are moving closer and closer to the creationist view. Even while finding ways to change the facts and defend evolution.

Sort of like what we've had in this forum the last few days, with some finding ways to change what the bible says, wouldn't you say? ;)
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on December 05, 2005, 02:48:17 PM
My first question would be, if they lived about 200,000 years ago, where did they come from? Did they just drop out of the sky?

So many questions, so few answers from them Kenneth. The fact is, if man "didn't" come from one set of parents, then what these scientists are "incredibly" alleging, is that human beings all evolved from many different sources and path, and yet all evolved identical, the exact same way at the exact same time. How ridiculous is that? Any real scientist would call that a one in billions chance, but these imply it not only happened once, but again and again and again. That is the nature of man where the smarter he gets, the less wisdom he has.

  2nd Timothy 3:7


Quote
>>>
Yet by the very facts they are coming up with, they are moving closer and closer to the creationist view. Even while finding ways to change the facts and defend evolution. Sort of like what we've had in this forum the last few days with some concerning what the bible says, wouldn't you say? ;)
<<<

..now that you mention it, absolutely correct.  Rationalization is the refuge of "ALL" those who have no desire to receive the love in truth because they take pleasure in their unrighteousness. That's the way of the world, and it always will be in that generation. You've got people blaming society for thieves and drunkards. You've got people in credit card debt and it is always someone else's fault, including the credit card company. You've got men rationalizing that it's the women's fault they beat them up. You've got pregnant women rationalizing that it's not their fault that they're pregnant. You've got people who can never hold a job, and it's always someone else's fault they get fired. Likewise, you've got those in the church rationalizing that when God says something, He really didn't mean it and it is just someone's else's private interpretation. ..even though it is quoted to them word for word from the text. That "indeed" is natural man, the nature of mankind. And except he or she is moved of the Spirit to accept the "authority" of scripture and obedience to the truth, it always will be. Except the Spirit of God work unto their receiving of the truth and obedience, they will forever be learning and never able to hear the truth. Whether inside or outside the church.

1st John 4:5-6

If some Christian is preaching the "unadulterated" word of God, and other Christians are denying it, then I think they have some serious issues apart from wrong opinions. It's one thing to disagree with a "conclusion" of man, but it's quite another to deny scripture and thus imply/suggest that it's not really true. That's not the working of the Spirit of truth.

1st Peter 1:22023

Worldly love and a dollar can get you a plastic bottle of water. But "agape" love is free benevolence, the true love of God and the brethren. A love unto obedience to His word rather than personal comfort, pats on the back, and appeasement.

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on December 06, 2005, 12:04:19 AM
<<<That's the way of the world, and it always shall be. You've got people blaming society for thieves and drunkards. You've got people in credit card debt, and it's always someone else's fault, including the credit card company. You've got men rationalizing that it's the women's fault they beat them up. You've got pregnant women rationalizing that it's not their fault that they're pregnant. You've got people who can never hold a job, and it's always someone else's fault. Likewise, you've got those in the church rationalizing that when God says something, He really didn't mean it and it's just someone's private interpretation. ..even though it's quoted it word for word! That "indeed" is the nature of man, except he or she is moved of the Spirit to acceptance of the "authority" of scripture and obedience to the truth. And except the Spirit of God work unto that obedience, they will always be ever learning and never hear the truth. Whether inside or outside the church.>>>

Correction.They all blame their actions on the structure of their DNA.

andreas.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Erik Diamond on October 10, 2007, 03:04:17 PM
Hello.

I am attending Art History class at my college.  We were talking about early arts like cave painting, Stonehenge, etc. before Pyramids.

After I read Tony Warren's "Creation timeline",  I started to wondered when did these events actually happened. Was it before Noah's Flood, or after?  If these people who used to have longer life than us and probably as smart as we are, why can't they 'draw' better, etc? Why didn't they have established writing language?  My teacher have made those early men sound like some dumb cavemen who only communicate with animal bloods or fat on cave wall. But did God created Adam and early men after him this way?  What do you think the pre-flood people and their skills are like? 

Cave painting interested me but are they really 30,000 years old like teacher said?  Are they made before or after flood? 

I am interesting to know what you think about that?

Erik Diamond
   
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Penne on October 10, 2007, 04:35:52 PM
  What do you think the pre-flood people and their skills are like? 
Erik Diamond
   

Erik,
   
I certainly doubt they were dumber than us.  Actually, the earth had less pollutants so surely they had to be smarter and clearer minded.  You bring up a good question about why couldn’t they draw better.  They were definitely more resourceful than we are today. 

Noah had to understand math, God gave Noah the exact measurements for the ark. 

Genesis 4
20  And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
21  And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22  And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.


Look at Jabal in verse 20, he had to know how to sew a tent, or at least someone in his household did.  This would include math.
Jubal invented musical instruments.
Tubalcain was an instructor of brass and iron.  He understood the processes on how to make both.
Those people were much smarter than most of us.

I don’t know if they didn’t have a writing system since they had all the other systems of math and science.  You know how children love to draw on walls, do you think their kids did the same?  This may explain the plain art work of stick men.  I’m just kidding of course, but I can not be convinced our history books are actually 100% correct.  The bible alone proves how much knowledge they had.  Man was not born without language or reasoning.  Adam had conversations with God immediately and named “flesh of his flesh,” Woman. 

Before an architect, drafter, or whoever invents or builds something they always start out with some sort of blueprint.  Jabel and Tubalcain come to mind, can you imagine making a tent or musical instrument without a detailed drawing of it?  They couldn’t rely on memory to store mistakes or successes when first inventing those things, which is why I believe they had to have a form of communications in writing.

The first man lived in a garden, not a cave.  I don’t believe there were cavemen in the way the history books tell.  Sure, I know some people did live in caves (Genesis 19:30), but I doubt they carried around a club to hit a beast over the head at dinner time or clubbed a female when he found her attractive and said, “UHG“.  All that is non-sense.

I’m not a historian or scientist.  I don’t have to be when I can read the Bible.  People were very intelligent before the flood and not brainless humans.

Sorry, I don't know when cave paintings were made.  It's just hard for me to believe people before the flood were dumber than us.

Penne
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on October 11, 2007, 09:36:09 AM
>>>
 If these people who used to have longer life than us and probably as smart as we are, why can't they 'draw' better, etc? Why didn't they have established writing language? 
<<<

Go to the jungles of South America today and look at some of the writings and drawings of the people living in isolated tribes there. They are very primitive looking. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between their drawings and the so-called thousands upon thousands of year old cave drawings. The fact of the matter is, if you or I were born and raised in that type environment, we'd be drawing on the walls of caves with berry juice also. And our drawings would look exactly like theirs does. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellect or  aptitude. The key words here are environment, familiarity and isolation, not evolved intelligence or acumen. By the same token, take one of those babies born in those tribes in South America, and raise them in our culture, and they could be just as educated as you or anyone else. People have developed differently in different cultures, not evolved over millions of years. There is a difference.

Hebrews 11:3

The key words here are seen and appear. Things are not as they appear to man (in his own wisdom), placing himself in this lofty position of thinking he knows the end from the beginning. It is a stumbling block to him to understanding. For man, in his own wisdom, confuses primitive living with intelligence. And again (as usual) it's for his own self-serving purposes. The "Religion" of evolution is just another way for man to "flatter himself in his own eyes." So that we've "evolved" into a totally new creation to be so much better than primitive men. How smart and  astute we are to have figured this all out. But if that is the case, then why do we see the same carnal aspects in Cain and Able as in brothers today? There is nothing new under the sun, and God looks upon Able the same as He looks upon any saved man today. As also with Cain. Because we are the same.

I can guarantee you that Noah didn't spend his time authoring letters, or drawing fancy pictures, which some would think makes him more intelligent. But he was a lot smarter than the worldly wise men of his day, and most today as well. ie, just because we have an abundance of visions, paper, superior pens, books and an abundance of time on our hands, doesn't mean we are any smarter than the people of old who didn't. Man likes to look upon himself as superior because of his sin nature, the vain "age-old" glorification of knowledge, which he wrongly identifies as intelligence! The opposite of the mind of Christ.

Romans 12:16

The "TRUTH" is, man is wise in his own conceits. Maybe even self-consciously, but there is no mistaking it. Why can't they 'draw' better? Who says they couldn't if given the same culture and Utilities? Why didn't they establish a written language? Actually they found writings I think a year or two ago which was thousands of years (according to them) earlier than they had previously thought man had started writing. Who cares! It doesn't matter, because what they actually know about people who lived before any writing has been found, you could fit on the head of a pin. The bottom line is, man doesn't know half the things he thinks he knows and only about half of what he knows he knows. There are all sorts of reasons there aren't writings laying around, not the least of which is because there were not billions of people in the world, and the people who were here stayed to their little groups/villages for the most part. In tribes, isolated for the most part. Just as the primitive people do in the jungles of South America. They would come and go in history and you'd never even know they existed if you didn't dig up the remnants of their cooking Utils. That doesn't make them products of evolution anymore than the diverse Indian tribes in this country who lived in diverse groups. And that was only a few hundred years ago. Selah!  By the way, remember that they were called primitive savages and thought to be inferior beings as well. All this only becomes a big mystery when one swallows "The Great Evolution Myth" hook, line and sinker. Otherwise, it's a simple matter of primitive culture. Not animals evolving into intelligent people over millions of years.


Quote
>>>
My teacher have made those early men sound like some dumb cavemen who only communicate with animal bloods or fat on cave wall.
<<<

Don't forget berry juice ;)

Of course your teacher did, otherwise how could evolution be true if these people were just as intelligent as we are today? I mean, then where would evolution be? We'd have to call it ..a myth, just as it actually is! I mean really, look at the Pyramids. Constructed thousands of years ago, and yet their method of construction totally baffles great so-called intelligent scientists to this very day, as to how it was done. The so called "intelligent" minds of today argue constantly on how these great bricks weighing tons could possibly have been constructed as a tower reaching up to heaven. And then be covered over with sand. To this day there is no clear consensus. ...In other words, those men living thousands of years ago who constructed these towers reaching to the sky, must have been a lot smarter than these scientists today who still haven't figured it out. Hmmmmm?

...or maybe they just don't get it!

If their assumptions and suppositions are wrong, then their conclusions will be wrong. In other words, they start out with an incorrect premise, and then they build a house of cards. ...which may look or appear good, but which will not stand.


Quote
>>>
Cave painting interested me but are they really 30,000 years old like teacher said?
<<<

The earth isn't 30,000 years old. And a writing on a wall in blood or berry juice would be non-existent after 30,000 years. These evolutionists depend upon the naiveté of most people, rather than actual knowledge, understanding and logical deductions, as support for their wild foolish self-serving theories. And "theories" are all they really are, once carefully examined.

You know, the true definition of evolve is to "develop or change by degrees." And in that sense, we are all evolving. And most of all Christians, or as God puts it, growing in Grace. The development or learning over time is nothing more complicated than being educated. Just as a two year old developing reading skills over time. If no one could read, in order to teach her, she would never learn to read. She would not evolve. Put her in some environments of Japan, and she might grow to be able to speak several languages by the age of 9. But that's not evolution in the classic sense of the word, which so many people (including Christians) don't really seem to understand. Vis-à-vis, Cave painting like those theorized to be by people living thousands or even a million years ago, could be made today by any one of us, had we not grown up and developed in the environments we did.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on October 11, 2007, 10:04:40 AM
Hello.

I am attending Art History class at my college.  We were talking about early arts like cave painting, Stonehenge, etc. before Pyramids.

After I read Tony Warren's "Creation timeline",  I started to wondered when did these events actually happened. Was it before Noah's Flood, or after?  If these people who used to have longer life than us and probably as smart as we are, why can't they 'draw' better, etc? Why didn't they have established writing language?  My teacher have made those early men sound like some dumb cavemen who only communicate with animal bloods or fat on cave wall. But did God created Adam and early men after him this way?  What do you think the pre-flood people and their skills are like? 

Cave painting interested me but are they really 30,000 years old like teacher said?  Are they made before or after flood? 

I am interesting to know what you think about that?

Erik Diamond
   

Hi Erik,

Since the timeline according to man is vastly different from the timeline according to the Bible, you have to take what you hear with a grain of salt.  There is no doubt in my mind that Adam & Eve were smarter than we are today, and had no physical imperfections. The introduction of sin and subsequent curse upon the earth had a negative impact, the confusion of languages and dispursement of men during the account of the tower of Babel had a negative impact, and the flood had a negative impact -- afterwhich the nations had to again be developed by the sons of Noah.  

My view is that the cave drawings occured after the flood, but in any case I believe we would be amazed at the beauty and natural abilities of Adam/Eve (including what we today regard as extra-sensory-perception - ESP) in comparison to men today.  

Gen 3
17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Gen 11
1  And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2  And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3  And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4  And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5  And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6  And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7  Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8  So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9  Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Gen 7
17  And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18  And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19  And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20  Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21  And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22  All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23  And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24  And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Gen 10
1  Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
... etc.
32  These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.


Yet despite such calamities that mankind has brought (and continures to bring) upon himself and the earth, it attests to God's forsight, and awesome creative powers which has enabled men to surviive and adapt, such that even today, we can say as David said, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made...

Psa 139
13  For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14  I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15  My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Psa 8
3  When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4  What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5  For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6  Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7  All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8  The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9  O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!  


Moreover, God hand of restraint has kept mankind from total destruction, and has allowed periods of progress -- including todays so called technological advances, all according to His overall plan of salvation.  Mankind has been allowed to thrive in accordance to God's plan that Christ would empty Himself of His glory and come into this world as one of us -- our Kinsmen Redeemer -- the second Adam, in order to meet the requirements of the Law that demands death for trangression of the Law.

Heb 2
5  For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6  But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8  Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11  For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12  Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13  And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14  Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15  And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16  For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17  Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18  For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.


No one knows all of the cyclical periods of advancement/'enlightenment" versus degredation/repression that has occured over time and in various parts of the world.  There are such refined aspects of the pyramids of Giza which cannot be explained or duplicated even today.  But since the perfection of Adam/Eve and the Garden of Eden was lost to sin, it's only due to the mercy of God that mankind has survived.

Rom 9
22  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23  And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?  

judy

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Colleen on October 11, 2007, 08:09:50 PM

 The key words here are environment, familiarity and isolation, not intelligence. By the same token, take one of those babies born in those tribes in South America, and raise them in our culture, and they could be just as educated as you or anyone else. People have developed differently in different cultures, not evolved over millions of years. And there is a difference.


Absolutely correct. And what a coincidence, no sooner than I log on today that I read this.


World's Oldest Wall Painting Unearthed
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis,Reuters
Posted: 2007-10-11 16:53:58

DAMASCUS (Oct. 11) - French archaeologists have discovered an 11,000-year-old wall painting underground in northern Syria which they believe is the oldest in the world.

 Reuters Archaeologists clean an underground wall near the city of Aleppo, Syria, last month that revealed an 11,000-year-old wall painting believed to be the oldest in the world. It will be moved to Aleppo's museum next year.

The 2 square-meter painting, in red, black and white, was found at the Neolithic settlement of Djade al-Mughara on the Euphrates, northeast of the city of Aleppo, team leader Eric Coqueugniot told Reuters.

"It looks like a modernist painting. Some of those who saw it have likened it to work by (Paul) Klee. Through carbon dating we established it is from around 9,000 B.C.," Coqueugniot said.

"We found another painting next to it, but that won't be excavated until next year. It is slow work," said Coqueugniot, who works at France's National Centre for Scientific Research.

Rectangles dominate the ancient painting, which formed part of an adobe circular wall of a large house with a wooden roof. The site has been excavated since the early 1990s.

The painting will be moved to Aleppo's museum next year, Coqueugniot said. Its red came from burnt hematite rock, crushed limestone formed the white and charcoal provided the black.

The world's oldest painting on a constructed wall was one found in Turkey but that was dated 1,500 years after the one at Djade al-Mughara, according to Science magazine.

The inhabitants of Djade al-Mughara lived off hunting and wild plants. They resembled modern day humans in looks but were not farmers or domesticated, Coqueugniot said.

"There was a purpose in having the painting in what looked like a communal house, but we don't know it. The village was later abandoned and the house stuffed with mud," he said.

A large number of flints and weapons have been found at the site as well as human skeletons buried under houses.

"This site is one of several Neolithic villages in modern day Syria and southern Turkey. They seem to have communicated with each other and had peaceful exchanges," Coqueugniot said.

Mustafa Ali, a leading Syrian artist, said similar geometric design to that in the Djade al-Mughara painting found its way into art throughout the Levant and Persia, and can even be seen in carpets and kilims (rugs).

"We must not lose sight that the painting is archaeological, but in a way it's also modern," he said.

France is an important contributor to excavation efforts in Syria, where 120 teams are at work. Syria was at the crossroads of the ancient world and has thousands of mostly unexcavated archaeological sites.

Swiss-German artist Paul Klee had links with the Bauhaus school and was important in the German modernist movement.


Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Erik Diamond on October 12, 2007, 11:16:28 AM
Quote
The earth isn't 30,000 years old. And a writing on a wall in blood or berry juice would be non-existent after 30,000 years. These evolutionists depend upon the naiveté of most people, rather than actual knowledge, understanding and logical deductions, as support for their wild foolish theories. And "theories" are all they really are, once carefully examined.

Thank you Tony for your comment.

I agree that earth is not older than 13,000 or so years, but has 'appear of age' that lead many people to believe that earth have been created millions of years ago. For example, Jesus turned water into prefect aged wine in an instant. So Jesus did not have problem create earth with appear of age in an instant.  

Anyway, I am curious, when do you think the cave painting took place?  Before or after flood?  Are we to think that there are nothing we can find that existed in pre-flood world that we can explain what that world looks like? What were the buildings looks like created by pre-flood people?  

Have a good weekend,
Erik
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: John on October 12, 2007, 11:04:57 PM
I look at human intelligence today and draw a distinction between innate intelligence and acquired learning.

Innate intelligence is the natural occurring ability of the brain to absorb and recall information. The faster the brain operates in absorbing and recalling information or the greater amount of information that can be stored and accessed determines innate intelligence. Just as there is variation in musculature, bone density, heart size, lung volume, and a thousand other physical factors-- so too, no two people have exactly the same genetically determined innate intellect.

Think of innate intelligence as the engine power we are born with. There is no reason to believe that antediluvian people had smaller intellectual capacity and many reasons to believe that had much greater. After the flood, and more particularly after the confusion of languages, it seems likely that with time isolated groups interbred and the overall genetic capability of the group was diminished. Think of the group's bell-shaped distribution curve leaning toward lower IQ and away from a higher IQ density. Not that there wouldn't be a genius IQs in each isolated group, but the number would be far smaller percentage-wise than the original. 

Over time, entropy being what it is, groups would lose the knowledge of basic skills that were once common to the original community. The knowledge of God would diminish to a level of superstition and once lost there is little chance of recovery. Intermingling of different groups is as unlikely then as it is today. People have a very strong need to identify within their group and to shun and distrust those different from themselves. One isolated groups' knowledge of metallurgy, carpentry, or masonry, for instance, would not be shared with potential rivals.

Innate intelligence varies between persons and is distributed unevenly between groups. These variations can deprive or bolster individual ethnic groups. In order for one civilization to achieve a more sophisticated culture there needs to be thinkers, but there also needs to be a memory of the past to build upon. A culture that has lost knowledge of past achievements (the wheel, metal working, fire, etc.) is not going to compete in the region as a major force. No doubt with the division of mankind at Babel some groups were at a distinct disadvantage. Thus, those were the groups never able to advance a culture to achieve anything note-worthy.

Secondly, if a group is under constant threat of extermination by its regional enemies, there is not going to be any significant advance in culture. It is during peaceful periods that advances in religion, science, art, farming, etc., are able to take place. To have peace you need to have a strong military and a strong military is most probable when you have better toys to intimidate the enemy with. A stronger military is in part the result of better genetics coupled with a better grasp of past achievements to build upon. But that is not all that is needed.

Consider the American Indians and the Spanish, Portuguese, English, or French invaders into the Americas.  Each indigenous Indian population was divided by language and various cultural identities that kept them apart. A varied level of achievement amongst the Indians existed - some tribes remained violent and primitive and others built cities and engaging in science and agricultural improvements. All the different factors were at play – but one other factor trumped it all. The invaders had superior weaponry and a superior knowledge of too many things that the Indians did not have.  Ignoring the unintentional spread of disease, the Indians really never had a chance against the invaders from across the sea.

Therefore, the best arrangement possible would be: 1) higher density of persons in the group with strong innate intellect, 2) a strong starting knowledge of things to build upon, and, 3) a long period of peace to grow a culture. But that is not the end of it. There is a fourth determinate. Barring better circumstances, there is still another way to develop a society rapidly: Absorb your enemies into your culture. That is, conquer them! Rather than develop a society slowly from within take the fast-track and conquer advanced peoples, assimilate the best, and improve your culture. It worked well for the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Europeans that eventually assimilated the Americas.

America became the super-power it is by assimilating ethnic groups from around the world -- gaining an advantage in prior know-how, gaining persons with superior IQ, coupled with isolation from its enemies and peaceful neighbors it was able to achieve prolonged periods of peace – nearly every factor needed to advance a society. But there is still yet one important factor left. That last factor is religion.

The Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and other assorted pagan religions and cults have a world-view that stifles creativity, promotes indifference and apathy, fears change, and enslaves the people. The same can be said for certain governmental systems that seek to hold power through brutality. The Christian religion properly applied by governments and administered in society fosters individual freedoms married to responsibility to God. Under this dynamic human achievement can blossom, as it did in America, especially when the other factors mentioned are present, and in this case they have been.

Should you compare crude cave painting to a magnificent work of art by Michelangelo or other seeming poorer skills to modern achievements, consider which factors were at work to limit or expand that culture. Consider the strength of group intelligence and genetic traits; consider the level of historical-generational knowledge passed down. Were those people afforded peaceful periods for building upon that knowledge, did their government and religion allow the assimilation of other cultures that was beneficial to society? Did their government and religion permit individual freedom to explore and create?

That fabled cave painter might have been his people’s best - an Einstein, but without the other factors in place, the bison on the wall and flint spears was all that was possible for him. There is no reason to suppose that if you’d been in a similar situation you would have fared any better.  Consider, if there were a contagion that wiped out all of mankind except you, what would you be able to accomplish? I’m thinking archaeologists would one day find evidence of your short life in artifacts of flint spears and little red bisons painted on a cave wall.

john
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on October 13, 2007, 09:37:40 AM
>>>
Anyway, I am curious, when do you think the cave painting took place?  Before or after flood?
<<<

Oh, I have no idea when those or any painting that are found actually took place (pre 5000) years. I can only tell you that they didn't take place 30,000+ years ago! Does it even matter?

Since I believe that the flood took place around 7000 years ago, and writings have been found only to about maybe 5000 years ago, it seems logical that the first 2000 years after the flood were spent creating a living, building and populating the earth from 8 people, and so there logically wouldn't be found much (or even any) writings/drawings during that time. I think we can "safely say," they didn't have the time on their hands that we have today to waste drawing pretty pictures.

And the fact of the matter is, we know how hard it is to find writings on cave walls even a few hundred years old. Lots of things have to happen and things all align up properly in order for paintings to remain over extended periods of time. It depends upon the ink or writing material used, the wall surface, the climate and environment, if water or moisture is present, insect life, a whole bevy of things. Actually, I don't really see where it's important, since faith is not by sight or by having convincing archaeological record, but of God.


Quote
>>>
Are we to think that there are nothing we can find that existed in pre-flood world that we can explain what that world looks like? What were the buildings looks like created by pre-flood people? 
<<<

Again, I do not know what the buildings looked like pre-flood. Since they were evidently all destroyed, I wouldn't think anyone knows, except they dig up that has been preserved in mud. I would only "assume" they looked pretty much like any other primitive dwellings we have even today. Which is also probably why we won't find many. For example, see some of the isolated villages people dwell within in the middle east and I don't think you would be far off in "assuming" their appearance was in that mold. Just a plain brick upon brick house. Most were probably clay bricks, straw or thatch-like roofs perhaps, even as some of the Indian tribes of this country.

Is the question of man's intelligence pre-flood, or just curiosity of architecture?


nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformed2005 on September 13, 2008, 07:46:10 PM
I have been listening to Ron Choong.  If you don't know him, Ron is a Christian and a scientist (not a Christian Scientist!!!! lol).  Anyway, he brings up some great points about how certain tenets of evolution can be correctly understood in light of the Bible.

 - God could have created a large number of early creatures.  These early creatures could have then evolved into more species.
     - From my own understanding of Biology, I would add that God would have had to create a large number of species (the "kinds" that the Bible speaks of), because I don't see a fish becoming a bird!

 - God could have created a type of man, and then breathed the "breath of life" (aka, a soul) into that type of man, to make him a "modern human"
     - This would mean that a type of previous homo being would have been created into homosapien at a time decided upon by God, and through His working.

The above does comport with my understanding of science, and the knowledge of God that He has given to us.  So, on the surface, I do not have a problem with it, and it actually (on the surface), makes my faith MORE robust because of its powerful showing of God's creative hand!

So, my question on this would be as follows:

If sin & death entered the world through Adam, how and why did previous animals die?  I'm not understanding how this part of it would work.

When I came to think about the above from Ron Choong, and looked at the Bible, it truly made me appreciate God even more.  For a long time, I had thought that evolution takes from God...when, in fact, it can ADD to our love of Him!!!

But, the question that I asked is troubling me, and I don't understand how that would fit.  If anyone has an answer, I would appreciate it!
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: andreas on September 14, 2008, 01:22:50 AM
<<<- God could have created a type of man, and then breathed the "breath of life" (aka, a soul) into that type of man, to make him a "modern human"
     - This would mean that a type of previous homo being would have been created into homosapien at a time decided upon by God, and through His working.

The above does comport with my understanding of science, and the knowledge of God that He has given to us.  So, on the surface, I do not have a problem with it, and it actually (on the surface), makes my faith MORE robust because of its powerful showing of God's creative hand!what is the matter with you lot?>>>

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 1.

What is it you do not get?God created man,not a type of man! Why do you have to bring in, something , called evolution?

andreas.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformed2005 on September 14, 2008, 12:07:55 PM
I am NOT stating that evolution is fact.  I am stating that a TYPE of evolution (not Darwinian) is POSSIBLE!

Based upon this POSSIBILITY, I am wondering how it would square with our understanding of how sin & death entered the world.

I am looking for someone who has wrestled with this POSSIBILITY, and come to a Biblical conclusion that meets them together.

Even though I understand that man was made from dust, please note that it is possible for God to have created modern humanity from a previously existing being.  For, I hope we all understand, the first two chapters of Genesis are not NECESSARILY literal, but may well be metaphorically presenting the truth of God's creation in a way that Moses and his contemporaries could have understood.

That being the case, if modern humanity was made from a previously existing TYPE of man (but not homosapien), we would still have been made from the dust of the ground (it simply would have been made indirectly from the dust, instead of directly).

I am NOT questioning Biblical authority or Biblical truth...I am merely trying to understand how an alternate theory, which some Christians hold, connects with Orthodox Christian understanding.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Penne on September 14, 2008, 01:08:14 PM

I am NOT questioning Biblical authority or Biblical truth...I am merely trying to understand how an alternate theory, which some Christians hold, connects with Orthodox Christian understanding.

It doesn’t matter how many Christians hold to that view.  God’s Word is not determined by popular consensus.  It matters ONLY what God says.  We know Adam was first, Eve second and then their children, this is how everyone else came to be.  Why would you believe anything else outside of the Bible?  God’s Word is the finally authority.  In your speculations you teeter on dangerous grounds.


So, my question on this would be as follows:

If sin & death entered the world through Adam, how and why did previous animals die?  I'm not understanding how this part of it would work.


That was a spiritual death which is why we must be born again to enter into heaven.

John 3:3
  "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:7
  "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
1Peter 1:23
  "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformed2005 on September 14, 2008, 04:41:07 PM
By this line of reasoning, would you state that anyone who is not a young earther is a heretic?  That would be ridiculous.

I am not claiming to KNOW the complete truth.  Nor should you.  Because the Bible states something in a certain way DOES NOT MEAN that it should be taken literally.  What of the Psalms?  Are they literal?  NO!!!!  Is all of Genesis 1 literal?  If a believer states that each day was not a 24-hour period, are they a heretic?

What is the problem with taking the increased knowledge we have through the study of humanity, and seeing how our theology applies to it?  I am NOT saying that the Bible needs to answer to science.  What I AM saying is that our theology needs to be open enough to account for things that modern science holds true...TO SOME EXTENT! 

If someone says that a 6-day creation, with the earth 6,000 years old, is the ONLY WAY to understand life on earth, I would laugh at this person.  Could this be true?  YES, OF COURSE!!!!  However, it might also not be true.  That does not make the Bible untrue...it only makes that person's INTERPRETATION of the Bible untrue!

Stepping on this ground is only dangerous if you have mere blind faith, and not a robust and firmly established faith in our great King, our wondrous and holy Triune God!

We should be able to ask these questions of each other, and also be able to answer these questions to others.  At the same time, we can also show reasons why some believe in a young earth (and, yes, I am aware of their reasons and arguments).

To be honest, young-earth, non-evolution science does not have enough evidence to sway me.  AT THE SAME TIME, old earth, non-Darwinian evolution science ALSO does not have enough evidence to sway me.  I don't know which is right, but I know enough about each to speak about them intelligently.

All I am asking is if anyone has worked out the possibility of non-Darwinian evolution, and how this applies to original sin, and the fall of creation through the fall of Adam.  Why is that dangerous?
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Penne on September 14, 2008, 06:58:16 PM


The way I see it we should never use any source other than the Bible to answer those kinds of questions.  I deal with only scriptural facts.  You’re on your own!

2Timothy 2:23
  "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on September 17, 2008, 01:36:32 AM

What is the problem with taking the increased knowledge we have through the study of humanity, and seeing how our theology applies to it? I am NOT saying that the Bible needs to answer to science. What I AM saying is that our theology needs to be open enough to account for things that modern science holds true...TO SOME EXTENT!


You said "our theology needs to be open enough to account for things that modern science holds true ", and therein lies your error.  Ask yourself,... should the Bible support science, or does true science support the Bible? 

It doesn't surprise me that great scientists who have stood the test of time... men of the caliber of Einstein, held a belief system whereby God was supreme. They appeared to be motivated by a need to better understand (not disprove) the incomparable workmanship of God.

The only "evolution" that makes sense is one in which God's creatures are capable of adapting/coping with one's environment.  This is not the type of evolution whereby, by chance, each creature 'evolved' from essentially nothing into beings with extremely complex systems that work together in harmony with one another.  So called Darwinians gloss over that fact that Darwin, in later years, began to understand the complexity of even the smallest organism, and to question his theory.  I believe he would be appalled and ashamed at the great lengths to which men have taken his theories and treated them as though they were fact.

What do you most value, and where do you place your trust?   The 'things that modern science holds true", or the things of God? 

1Co 2
5  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6  Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


judy
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformed2005 on September 19, 2008, 08:16:30 PM
To All:

I do appreciate all of your defenses of the Bible, and your replies.  I agree with each of you entirely, that the Bible is the one and only source of truth.  Where I disagree is that the Bible should be considered, in all parts, literally true; rather than sometimes figuratively true.

What I mean by that statement is this: MANY Christians do not believe that the first seven days of Creation were literal seven days.  Instead, that it was poetic language that was describing a completely and literal true fact: GOD DID IT!!!!  I do not counter this, I do not question this.  It is without doubt that God created the universe, and all things in it.  It is also without doubt that God sustains all things by His mighty power, and His word.  All things that have happened, that are happening, and that will happen, do so BECAUSE God ordained them to happen.  I hope this clears up any question about my faith in God's majesty, power, glory, and truth.

As an addendum to God's word being sometimes figuratively true is Biblical prophecy.  Such as Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.  Some of the ways in which future events are recorded are not literally true, but instead, true metaphorically (such as God destroying the great empires in Daniel; God did not hurl a rock at a statue...that is poetic language to describe what will happen).

Now, I see that the question at hand will not be answered.  But, let me state this.  I in NO WAY believe that Darwinian Evolution is true.  I do NOT believe that God created a microbe and then that microbe eventually turned into humans.  What I do believe as POSSIBLE, is that God created all the birds of the air, all the fish of the sea, etc etc...and that those birds became different species of birds through adaptation.

Thank you all, and God Bless!
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformer on September 19, 2008, 10:44:13 PM
What I do believe as POSSIBLE, is that God created all the birds of the air, all the fish of the sea, etc etc...and that those birds became different species of birds through adaptation.

Thank you all, and God Bless!


Whoa, wrong word. Adaption is where you are "dead" wrong! The birds didn't adapt anymore than man did. They changed by the same process human beings change today. By non-colonial procreation or breeding. It is a simple case of genetics, not adaption! For example, my grand parents came to this country with strict italian features, but now my son's kids all have blond hair and no italian features to speak of. Was that adaption to this country? Absolutely not! It was a simple case of procreation or breeding (for lack of a better word) outside of the years of breeding in the Italian influence. Of course birds change down through the years, people change, dog's change, horses change. It is not adaption or selection, it is the natural outcome of particular breeding outside their normal sphere. Even inside the normal sphere there is change, that is why all colonies of the earth all have their unique features, while they all came from one man, Adam. Every time there is a birth resulting from procreation between male and female, there is change. Not adaption, but change. The idea of adaption is the self serving bogey-man of scientific propaganda.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: judykanova on September 20, 2008, 05:05:47 AM

Where I disagree is that the Bible should be considered, in all parts, literally true; rather than sometimes figuratively true.


No one disagreed with this.  Most here well know that there is an underlying spiritual meaning to most of Scripture. 

There is nothing new under the sun, including attempts (some subtle and some not so subtle), to undermine the Bible’s account of creation.  There are spiritual lessons to be sure, which point to the Gospel, but that in no way negates the literal account of creation, which the Bible unscores with the repeated refrain…

Gen 1:5  …And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8  …. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:31  ... And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.  


Quote
Now, I see that the question at hand will not be answered.  But, let me state this.  I in NO WAY believe that Darwinian Evolution is true.  I do NOT believe that God created a microbe and then that microbe eventually turned into humans.  What I do believe as POSSIBLE, is that God created all the birds of the air, all the fish of the sea, etc etc...and that those birds became different species of birds through adaptation.

You may not have liked the answer, but your question was answered.  The crux of your original post/question was this:

Quote
- God could have created a large number of early creatures.  These early creatures could have then evolved into more species.
     - From my own understanding of Biology, I would add that God would have had to create a large number of species (the "kinds" that the Bible speaks of), because I don't see a fish becoming a bird!

- God could have created a type of man, and then breathed the "breath of life" (aka, a soul) into that type of man, to make him a "modern human"
     - This would mean that a type of previous homo being would have been created into homosapien at a time decided upon by God, and through His working.

These speculations and use of the phrase ‘evolved into more species’, are altogether unbiblical.  The God-given ability to adapt to one’s environment does not a new species make.  A child born with a birth-defect due to negative environmental influences, is no less a human child -- with a birth-defect.  Not another “species”.  A man who loses arms and learns to write with his toes is no less human, though he is missing two limbs and has developed great dexterity in his toes.  When God confused the language at the tower of Babel, and men scattered across the globe, some developed certain characteristics  (e.g. skin color, body hair) over the course of long-standing exposure to extreme heat or extreme cold.  Yet all remained human and came from the loins of Adam. 

Sin itself wrought changes (curses) upon mankind and upon the earth and all of its creatures.  Yet none of these things change the underlying concept of origin.

Men even try to characterize mankind into “races”, based on such outwards characteristics as skin color -- which is only skin-deep. Yet all mankind originated[/u] from the loins of Adam.  Men try to justify genocide based on the evil premise that another race/culture is sub-human or inferior. Yet all mankind originated[/u] from the loins of Adam.  Mankind tries to categorize all living things.  Yet all living things originated from those God created during the 6-day of creation -- after which God rested (was done) on the 7th day.


There is nothing new under the sun.  This idea of  “modern man” or any other kind of man as being somehow separate from Adam/Eve, goes directly against the Bible's account of creation, the sinful nature of mankind since the fall, and against basic tenets of the Gospel itself:

Rom 5
12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13  (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1Co 15
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1Co 15
45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47  The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.  


judy
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: bloodstone on September 21, 2008, 09:50:09 AM
Reformed2005 is talking about what some call Theistic Evolution, which has been disproved a hundred times over because it simply contradicts and denies the plain text of the Genesis account of creation.

 Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

 And as we go on reading in the Genesis account, the text could not be more explicit on the length of actual time and order of creation. In fact, author Brad T. Bromling wrote that it is certainly valid to inquire as to how the critics of creationism would have had God phrase His creation narrative if He had desired to teach a creation week composed of seven literal, twenty-four hour days and all life created in that time span. How could it be more explicit?  You have to be predisposed to reject what is written for you not to understand the very clear declarations. In other words, starting out with an eye to disprove that what is said is accurate.

It brings to mind something Tony Warren said a while ago on this topic.

 "We wouldn't even be having this discussion except modern man in his vain egotistical self serving nature, had not invented the religion of evolution to replace God on the throne. Rather than attempt to conform the bible to fit the scientists religion of evolution (as many Christians are doing), we should be viewing true science as that which should inherently conform to the Bible".


I couldn't agree more. I'd say that is right on target. Science doesn't define creation, the bible does. Man doesn't adapt to his environment. A fish doesn't become a crocodile, a monkey doesn't become a man, a dinosaur doesn't become a bird, that whole "adaption" theory thing is all Steven Speilberg science fiction. A good movie to be sure, but nothing more than fiction. The real problem is, the scientists ideas (over time) become accepted by Christians as fact. And that is the problem.


Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: JonathanWhitehead on October 18, 2008, 04:55:26 PM
By this line of reasoning, would you state that anyone who is not a young earther is a heretic?   

Yes.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on September 04, 2010, 05:10:14 AM
Tony,
  I've been reading some of these writings of yours and I cannot believe what you are saying. This thread seems the best to post my thoughts on this issue. I find your theory of age of the earth and time to be totally impossible, due to all of the scientific data that is avalible concerning evolution. A 13,000 year earth? Are you kidding me? I suppose that you think that the earth just appeared on the first day without evolution? If God made all these things, then why did he make it look like hed did not create the stars, planets and other universes. Wouldn't it make more sense for God to stick creating one earth in the center of the universe if we're the primary planet? Why are we like the third planet from the sun and not the one all others revolve around. I don't understand how you can base all of your thoughts of time and creation on the bible, when some of it doesn't make sense at all today.

Thanks
Maurice
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on September 04, 2010, 11:44:00 AM
>>>
Tony,
  ...I find your theory of age of the earth and time to be totally impossible, due to all of the scientific data that is avalible concerning evolution.
<<<

No doubt because we have a fundamental difference in our definitions of scientific data. More scientifically categorized, evolution should be "classified" as presupposition, speculation, projection, assumptions, theory and hypothesis. ...but then, if that was the case, who would call it proof?

1st Thessalonians 5:21

We should subject everything that is submitted to us for belief to the proper tests of truth. Try the spirits. If they contradict the word of God, we reject them out of hand. And make no apologies for that.


Quote
>>>
 A 13,000 year earth? Are you kidding me?
<<<

No! It is my belief, based on the scriptures, that the world is approximately 13,000 years old. There is no credible proof (as opposed to theories) that the world is well over 13,000 years old. None! Not carbon dating, not in the fossil record, not in archaeology. None! Because if your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions will be wrong.


Quote
>>>
I suppose that you think that the earth just appeared on the first day without evolution?
<<<

No, I know that the heaven and the earth were created on the first day by My God, because the word of God very plainly (unambiguously) declares it.

Genesis 1:1-5

I am a Bible-Believing Christian, rather than a Bible manipulating Christian. A evening and a morning was called a day, just as it is a 24 hour period today. Nothing has changed except a modern and rampant distortion of the meaning of words.


Quote
>>>
If God made all these things, then why did he make it look like hed did not create the stars, planets and other universes.
<<<

You mean why did God create a earth that "appears" to have age? It's no mystery, it's called a miracle. God does that. That's why He's God. Like God created the wine for the marriage in Cana of Galilee. And no mystery, the wine "appeared" to have age. ...even though it was just miraculously made.

Like Adam was created a full grown man, and not a infant or baby. Adam "appeared" to have age, even though he was made in a day. Or like full grown trees created for the Garden of Eden, ..Etc., etc? Why? Well, since God knew the end from the beginning, maybe it was to confound the wise in their own conceits? For it is by faith that Bible Believing Christians know that the creation of the worlds were not as they do "appear." ..as we all know, appearances can be deceiving.

Hebrews 11:3

We do understand this and comprehend in great wisdom that our knowledge of truth is derived only from the Spirit of God through faith of Christ, not from our own "Pea-Brain" reasoning. We are finite beings, God is infinite.


Quote
>>>
Wouldn't it make more sense for God to stick creating one earth in the center of the universe if we're the primary planet?
<<<

Make more sense to who? To Scientists? Evolutionary Apologists? To You? Man is not the center of the Solar System, God is. The earth is not the center of the universe, God is. Even in our sphere of this universe of God's, why do you think all the planets revolve around the Sun? Because it is representative of God, the true light of the world. God designed these things for His glory, not so that man could presume that time created the plans and blueprints of creation. On the contrary. The worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Hebrews 11:3). And it is "only" by faith that Christians understand what non Christians cannot. And they will not be dissuaded that they should turn back to believe the worldly influences.

Hebrews 10:38


Quote
>>>
Why are we like the third planet from the sun and not the one all others revolve around.
<<<

Well for starters, the symmetry of the universe isn't all about either chance or man, but the glory of God. ie, the Sun doesn't revolve around us spiritually, we revolve around the Sun, Spiritually. It is the giver of life on earth, being the great light of the life of the world (Malachi 4:2).

John 8:12

And the number three is the number of purpose and will of God. The planet earth was designated the home of man, being the third planet from the sun, the only planet known to support human life, demonstrating God's will and purpose worked out in us. Yes, I know, to the world all this is coincidence or foolishness, but our God is a very organized God who knows what He is doing, even when we do not. There are no design flaws specifically because God is the designer.


Quote
>>>
I don't understand how you can base all of your thoughts of time and creation on the bible, when some of it doesn't make sense at all today.
<<<

I understand what you are saying, but actually, it makes perfect sense. You might not be able to imagine this because you can't imagine GOD. Man's imaginations are all built around what is plausible in his (that is, MAN'S) mind. So of course this seems impossible and far fetched to him. But as I've said many times, looking deeper you will find that "NOTHING" is impossible. And Things around you testify of the possibility of the impossible all the time. With God, the only thing that is impossible, is that He could LIE!

Allow me to digress for a moment. Take the heavens for example, or "Outer Space" as you might call it. This may sound silly, but seriously "think" about this for a minute. There is space that goes on, and on, and on, and on, arguably into billions of light years. Think about that! WOW! Is that impossible or what?  You can't even really comprehend endless space! Something that goes on continually and that seemingly has no ending. Or, suppose there must be an ending. So you go out into space so far that eventually, all of a sudden it ends? WOW Again!! Is that impossible or what? Seriously "THINK" about that! Is there a cosmic brick wall at the end of outer space, or just a force that keeps you from going any further? And if you really want to get heavy, think if there is a ending to to space, and it is some cosmic force or wall of some sort preventing going any further, then try and COMPREHEND such a force or wall! Then what is behind that wall? If you say nothing, then comprehend nothing as a force keeping us from going further? ...WOW!

You see, I say all that to only to demonstrate that what seems impossible is actually REALITY! Space is reality, and it is just as incomprehensible in terms of our minds "IF" we take the time to THINK about it. For when we do think about it seriously, then we find that what "SEEMS" impossible, is not only very possible and plausible, but a reality. In point of fact, the very Heavens I speak about themselves "TESTIFY" that there is a God (as it is written)! For if you believe the heavens exist (Outer SPACE) then you believe the impossible. You believe the scientifically unbelievable! And outer space is only the second heaven (our atmosphere being the first). Dare you think about if there is something beyond that second heaven, a third Heaven?

   ...He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!

Don't sell yourself short my friend, everything is NOT explainable, despite what the (so called) "brilliant Scientists" would have you believe. As the Bible says of these men, they are Forever Learning, and yet never able to come to the knowledge of truth.

So some may say God is impossible, miracles are impossible, life after death is impossible, but think seriously about outer space. ...then tell me again what is impossible. You will find that the unthinkable, is very much Thinkable. And you know what is "REALLY" impossible? It is that all this universe, the solar system, the planet, the sun, it's distance from earth, the people and animals all working harmoniously together, just happened by mere chance in some self mixing primordial soup. Now that's what doesn't make sense and is impossible!

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on September 05, 2010, 06:14:01 AM
Allow me to digress for a moment. Take the heavens for example, or "Outer Space" as you might call it. This may sound silly, but seriously "think" about this for a minute. There is space that goes on, and on, and on, and on, arguably into billions of light years. Think about that! WOW! Is that impossible or what?  You can't even really comprehend endless space...


   I think I have read you say this before, and was impressed with it. And I must admit that your digression is, in a weird sorta way, genius! So let me chew on that a bit. It makes your point. But, just showing that there possibly could be a God,  miracles and things that seem impossible, doesn't "prove" that there are miracles, or a God. It only proves that the impossible is possible. So while I'll reluctantly admit that you have shown there could be a God, you have not shown that there is a God. Nor that he created the earth in 6 days. Nor that evolution is not a fact.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Terrell Meyer on September 05, 2010, 01:11:25 PM

Tony,
 Brilliant! Science is just a word, all things are possible with God.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Melanie on September 06, 2010, 01:30:21 PM

Tony,
 Brilliant! Science is just a word, all things are possible with God.



 Ac 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

 Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

  Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Lots of things are not possible. How is this reconciled?

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Red on September 06, 2010, 02:36:46 PM
Mr. Warren,

Your post was well said, for which we are thankful to God. I sent your post to my children and asked them to read it to their children~fourteen of them from fourteen years old to one. My oldest grandson said maybe he will take it with him to school and see what the teacher will say.

Again, thank you.

Red Baker
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Erik Diamond on September 06, 2010, 11:18:07 PM
Quote
So some may say God is impossible, miracles are impossible, life after death is impossible, but think seriously about outer space. ...then tell me again what is impossible. You will find that the unthinkable, is very much Thinkable. And you know what is "REALLY" impossible? It is that all this universe, the solar system, the planet, the sun, it's distance from earth, the people and animals all working harmoniously together, just happened by mere chance in some self mixing primordial soup. Now that's what doesn't make sense and is impossible!

Recently in the news, British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, admired by many scientists and unbelievers, thought it is impossible for God to created universe. He does not even believe God exists.  He believes the universe coming out of "nothing" by accident, but failed to explain how. Hawking is believer in "coincidence". The earth, he said, just happened by luck combination of earth-sun distance and solar mass and denied that God created the only planet in whole universe with LIFE just to please us human beings. 

Sad.


Erik
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Rick Reeves on October 18, 2011, 12:31:04 PM

There Is a Plethora of Scientific Evidence for a “Young” Earth. Here are just a few.

Not only are the evolutionary claims regarding the millions of years age of the earth without adequate support, there are a number of genuine scientific evidences that point to a relatively "young" earth.

Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the earth’s magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only thousands of  years ago, not millions, and is decaying toward extinction (1981, 1-4).

Also, deep under the surface of the earth are huge reservoirs of oil and water. Many of these reservoirs are characterized by extremely high fluid pressures. These pressures are gradually diminishing (much like air seeping from the tire of an automobile).

It is acknowledged that the rock above these pockets is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of several thousand years. Yet the pressure is still there. Dr. Melvin Cook, former professor at the University of Utah and president of IRECO Chemicals (1968 winner of the Nitro Nobel Award), argues that this suggests that these pressure pools were formed only thousands of years ago, not millions. He contends it is evidence for a young earth (1970, 5).

Actually, there are many tell-tale features of the earth which suggest that its existence is not to be measured in terms of billions of years. In his recently published book, The Young Earth, Dr. John Morris devotes an entire chapter to “Geologic Evidence for a Young Earth” (1994, 93-117).

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: YourBroNChristJesus on December 13, 2011, 10:51:04 AM
The B I B L E; now, that's the book for me. Our book of instructions has always been correct and science (although maybe a little slow), always supports God's Word. All these thousands of years go by and the Bible stands as God's word without error or mistake. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, 0 Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7

Here are a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000–10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale. Much more young-world evidence exists. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproved assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this 'the winding-up dilemma', which they have known about for 50 years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same 'winding-up' dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the past few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called 'density waves'. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the 'Whirlpool' galaxy, M51.

2. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Ort cloud to supply it.

3. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters. The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

5. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.

6. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone — formed an alleged 500 million years ago — of the Ute Pass Fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale. 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.

9. Helium in the wrong places.
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.

10. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

11. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.

12. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000–5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: PetriFB on May 10, 2012, 01:19:57 AM
From the book of Charles Darwinin "The origin of Species" became principal work of evolution theory. Nowadays, scientific world view is mainly based on evolution theory. Majority of natural science researchers believes that the Bible is not word of God, and the creation story of the Bible is untrue.

People who believe to scientific world view hold on the Bible as a fairytale, which conflicts with natural science. The criticism of science world crumbles before the truth of the Bible.

The whole article is here: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/evolutiontheoryerror.html
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: PURITAN HEART on December 16, 2012, 11:18:20 AM
Greetings all,

I 'happened upon' these lectures and since my find, have thoroughly enjoyed and learnt MUCH.  I find so awfully frustrating at times that I cannot defend my faith, and thus, should there be others who also wish to learn more about this subject, I encourage you to watch these lectures.  My daughter is in a school where only evolution is taught (all of Sweden) and creationism is mocked so much that she has on occasion come home in tears.  I felt I needed to be in a position to answer her questions with as much biblical accuracy as I could, despite what she is taught!  I thank God that my child comes home and asks questions, we talk and she tells me 'things'... parents, pray for your children... the times are so dark and not a day passes that I do not see 'evil being called good' and 'good being called evil!'  Isaiah 5 v 20: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

I sincerely hope you enjoy and learn from these as I have and continue to.

- Lecture 1.

(as you reach the end of lecture 1, you are able to click to view the next in the series)

Alexandra
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Trotter on December 17, 2012, 04:42:14 AM
That reminds me of the question asked, "The Evolution of Man Versus the Bible and Science" where the question was asked, can one be a Christian and believe in evolution?"

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=144.0

I'm not going to open that can of worms, let God judge. But I do find the question itself very interesting. Personally, I believe if parents are not teaching their children of the folly of evolution, they are not being biblically responsible and share some of the blame. In fact, I put a lot of the blame for what is going on in this country and around the world today right at the feet of parents. Parents who aren't parenting, but enabling their children, spoiling them, afraid to say no to them or correct them for fear they won't love them. It is a true saying, you reap what you sow. The parents have sown, and now they are reaping the fruits of their liberalism.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Pilgrim on December 17, 2012, 06:28:25 AM
I agree. Evolution vs. Creationism is like Divorce vs. Covenant Marriage. Christians give lip service to it, but in the end mostly are just like the rest of the world. They've been brainwashed by the media so that Evolution and divorce are inevitable, necessary evils of our society. If you want to raise your kids right, you have to get them ahead of time and prepare them for the propaganda they are going to receive, so that they will be ready for it and able to endure. Train them up to be strong in Christ so that they can withstand all the wiles of the devil. Whether in school or in Church.

-------------------------------

Myths About Evolution: Myth #1, all scientists agree
By Rob Hughes
 
When all is said and done, the ultimate “proof” of evolution is an appeal to human authority. We are often reminded by anti-creationists that virtually all “real” scientists agree that evolution happened.

When examining this myth, one must keep in mind that those who make this claim often rely on the belief that the only real scientists are those who accept evolution. The argument, then, essentially boils down to this: evolutionists agree that evolution happened. This, of course, is an absurd argument, and we could just as easily say that creationists agree that creation happened.

The main problem, however, is that even if every single person accepted an idea, that doesn’t make the idea correct. The history of science (and humanity) is filled with majority views being incorrect. Evolution is another such idea. Secondly, many scientists accept evolution because the only alternative is design, which is against their naturalistic beliefs. They have a prior commitment to keeping any miraculous interaction out of their worldviews, and they accept evolution by default.

Finally, there are a growing number of scientists, creationist and not, who do not find the supposed evidence for evolution to be valid or acceptable. The truth of the matter is that while some evolutionists would like creationists like us not to exist, we do, and it is past time for the myths of evolution—and the myth of evolution itself—to be dismissed once and for all.

    People speak of evidence. Well, if they are referring to micro-evolution (developmental changes that take place within a species), then yes, this is documented and we know it takes place. Macro-evolution (referring to so called changes that cross the species barrier) is a philosophical view where all life emerges virtuously from a single cell, etc. This has not been documented and does not happen. Give me one example of genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome.

    I have studied the theory of evolution and have found it to be utterly farcical. Evolution is not true science because science is defined by that which is testable and reproducible. Evolution is not true science, evolution is true science fiction.

    Answers in Genesis is indeed correct in stating that the earth is young, comparably speaking. It is certainly not billions of years old. Consider the following. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family . . . The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions × trillions × trillions × trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists.

    I uphold my faith by aligning myself with the creation account. The evidence that we have supports creation. It does not support evolution. Some people wonder if evolution is compatible with the Bible. It is not. Simple logic will show that evolution is not even compatible with science.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Herman Stowe on December 17, 2012, 06:27:34 PM
Some good info here also

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/the_historicity_of_adam.shtml

Evolution doesn't really make sense, nor is it really scientific. It's a myth that has been perpetrated so well over the years, that people believe it without ever examining its true worth, foundation or rationale.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Jesse on December 18, 2012, 06:31:53 AM
I agree. Evolution vs. Creationism is like Divorce vs. Covenant Marriage. Christians give lip service to it, but in the end mostly are just like the rest of the world. They've been brainwashed by the media so that Evolution and divorce are inevitable, necessary evils of our society.

Finally, someone said it. It's the so-called news media that is most responsible for perpetrating and sustaining this hoax, just as they do with these school shootings (assuring they'll be more with their constant 7 day coverage), jaded views on abortion, christian zionism, rampant homosexuality, disdain of children, no fault divorce divorce, promoting animals to human-like status, acceptance of premarital sex, women in positions of men, removing any mention of God, and every other movement that is defies God's order of things. It's about time we recognized that fact. The Devil is working through our own TV screens to distort and corrupt our youth. The root of the problem is man and the media power he wields to control, and thus distort information that we receive. If you want to know why evolution is so accepted and prevalent all over the industrial world, even in most of our churches to a great degree, look no further than the media who drums it into our kids heads. And by extension, our educational system which mirrors and constantly promotes it as a fact, even though by any definition it is a theory "at best."

 There's an old movie where big brother controls everything by controlling information that is disseminated, and we're not far from that scenario right now. And isn't that how the truth has left the Churches? By people in control denying the truth to be spoken, shutting off those who would protest and making them appear radical and out of the norm?
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Philly Dawg on December 18, 2012, 09:24:23 AM
Finally, someone said it. It's the so-called news media that is most responsible for perpetrating and sustaining this hoax, just as they do with these school shootings (assuring they'll be more with their constant 7 day coverage),

Fox News (or the Republican Right Wing Christian Network) specifically banned their news people from talking about gun control after the conn. shooting. Isn't that the fair and balanced Network? Guess not!

Talk about the media controlling the minds, you are A#1 correct about that. And they've been doing it for years, and that includes all the Networks.

It's not Evolution vs. Creationism, it's the media vs. Creationism. You won't see anything about the evidence of Creationism except on the warped religious shows like the 700 club or other such false christian outlets. The mainstream media won't allow the creationist views to be heard, unless they have editing rights and the ability to denigrate, counteract and mock it afterward.





Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: George on December 18, 2012, 10:04:38 AM
Dawg, why are you always so political? Leave politics out of it. I haven't heard Fox News did that, I doubt that they would. Maybe you made all that up since you hate Fox.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Philly Dawg on December 18, 2012, 11:34:40 AM
I haven't heard Fox News did that, I doubt that they would.


http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=8683

Now you have head of it! There is a little thing called "Google" where you might educate yourself every once in a while. Fox News and their continuing "overt" non-journalistic bias is not a secret, except apparently to you.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Granny on December 18, 2012, 06:15:41 PM
 I also believe that the evolution myth is not only supported by the entire media, educational structure and Hollywood, but that they actively promote evolution and suppress creationism. Just as they have flooded the airwaves with gays and alternative lifestyles for so long that people now look at it as normal, and attack anyone who dares to say its not. Look for the day when reading the Bible parts against Homosexuality will be considered a hate crime.

It's all in God's hands. There is nothing you can do about it unless you're going to buy a TV Network, start making movies or put so much pressure on the media that they have to cover Creationism as well as Evolution. But let's be honest, true Christians are few and far between these days, and other Christians can't even put pressure on a bathroom scale. They are so much like the world you couldn't get 1/8th to agree on interpretation of Creationism.

I'm old enough to know that it's all in God's hands, and from the look of things, it won't be long before the Lord will return and take an accounting.



Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Jesse on December 19, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Granny, you're the best!

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Simon on December 19, 2012, 09:24:40 AM
Is it OK to post articles of people here? If not, just delete it with my apologies.



THE MYTH COLLAPSES: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law - something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliche is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able to answer the question, “How did life evolve from non-living forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of “selection for survival” operates before life exists, to explain how “life” is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer. Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins ñ so too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is, what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told, to different conditions of climate and competition for food resources) but we do not have different varieties of being alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the least often) would have out-survived all competition, until eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of course, the same climate and conditions of competition for food resources support both relatively long- and relatively short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly intermingled within even the same individual life-form.

Life rests upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins, the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up of the combination of on average 1000-1500 amino acids in 20 different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero probability of this happening by chance, not even if the universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials (proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these proteins to have formed by chance as the for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.

Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

The problem of transitional forms

Another of many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of, for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same problem arises when we look for transitional forms between land-bound reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and distortion in the service of falsehood into which some scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land creatures ,and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago, was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms never existed.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or “created”. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and the package is completed or, as we should rather say, fabricated. “Eusthenopteron transformed into first Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long evolution process.” If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half way to convincing most people. For the great many people who see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.

The most common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to human beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches (all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of average build an features. This is offered as our story, our beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular textbook or encyclopedia which touches upon the subject, and in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the West.

In these drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family. Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist scientists. But the fossils found give information only about the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth will reveal information about the probable range of diet. The fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man, half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of bones can give be made to give rise to quite different re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s preference: for example, the three totally unlike re-constructions of the fossil called Australopithecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of myth-making imagination inspired by a particular ideology.

The ideological background to the theory

In order to understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended so insistently, we need to look to the historical background behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church. Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and principles started to conflict with the interests of certain social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but having no political power, these groups began a long struggle to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th century “enlightenment” intellectuals and 19th century positivists came from these secularizing groups and were funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the biggest single social transformation realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground. None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is that man was created, as the Church had always held (following the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very noteworthy that socialism, the most radical and outspokenly anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism (Marx and Engels Letters, vol. 2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to the others, this notion proposed that some races were in advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides socialism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to convince them that man was not created by God as a morally responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of “modern civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and reputable science journals is a consequence of this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters, and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact, some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead, another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.


Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: bannination on February 03, 2013, 12:09:39 PM
Is it OK to post articles of people here? If not, just delete it with my apologies.



THE MYTH COLLAPSES: THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

In the West, the theory of evolution continues to be promoted as if it were a proven fact or a secure, testable and tested law - something that no-one in their right minds questions any more. This presentation implies that there is no room, let alone any need, for discussion. The most common media cliche is that the evolutionary chain has been confirmed yet again by yet another discovery of the missing link proving human ancestry from apes. Faced with this kind of promotion and presentation, and the sheer pervasiveness of it, it is no surprise if non-specialists come to accept that the theory must be true, and that it must be accepted by all the specialists, the whole scientific community, with no serious doubters. However, that perception is far from the reality. In the first place, the theory lacks completeness on two major counts and there is no likelihood of these deficiencies ever being made up. In the second, there are major voices of dissent from within the scientific community, alongside alternative theoretical explanations which demonstrate a far superior conformity with observed or experimentally obtained data.

The origin of life

To have any enduring claim to viability the theory of evolution must explain the origin of life in its own terms. It must be able to answer the question, “How did life evolve from non-living forms?’ It needs also to explain how the notion of “selection for survival” operates before life exists, to explain how “life” is the best way for non-living forms to exist longer. Just as the theory tells us that, because rhinoceroses with the thickest skin did best in battles with other rhinoceroses, over aeons of time rhinoceroses evolved skins as thick as skins can possibly get while still functioning as skins ñ so too, it needs to tell us how life is an adaptation. If it is, what is it an adaptation to? Moreover, if life is an adaptation, why is it the same across the whole range of living forms (animal or plant or in-between)? We have innumerable varieties of living forms (adapted, we are told, to different conditions of climate and competition for food resources) but we do not have different varieties of being alive. Is that what we should expect? Should we not expect that the creatures who lived longest (and had offspring the least often) would have out-survived all competition, until eventually they lived so long it was for ever? Or, vice-versa that those who lived the shortest lives (and therefore had more offspring more often) eventually fell back, after aeons of trial and proof, into hardly being alive at all individually, but merely replicating themselves? In fact, of course, the same climate and conditions of competition for food resources support both relatively long- and relatively short-lived forms at every level of complexity and thoroughly intermingled within even the same individual life-form.

Life rests upon an infinitely precarious equilibrium among the proteins, the building blocks of life, found in the simplest to the most complex of living forms. Denying the existence of a conscious Creator, the theory of evolution cannot explain how this equilibrium was established and protected. The theory proposes chance and coincidence as the only scientific way to think about the question. But a scientific way of looking at a problem must have at least some likelihood of being true, if we are to expend energy fruitfully on verifying or falsifying it. In other words, a hypothesis must be reasonable to start with so that we can test and judge it. It must not be irrational: the appeal to chance and random coincidences is nothing if not an abandonment of reason. A protein is made up of the combination of on average 1000-1500 amino acids in 20 different types in a certain sequence. Even a single error in that sequence renders the protein useless. There is zero probability of this happening by chance, not even if the universe is billions of light-years wide and long. One of the foremost advocates of evolution, the Russian scientist A.I. Oparin confesses this impossibility in his book The Origin of Life (pp.132-133). Even the simplest of these materials (proteins), consisting of thousands of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms, each with a unique design presents highly sophisticated structure. For those who study the structure of the proteins, it is as hopeless for these proteins to have formed by chance as the for the Aeneid (the long Latin epic by Virgil) to have been composed by random association of the letters of the Latin alphabet.

Another evolutionist scientist has offered a different analogy with the same conclusion. The probability of a chance formation of only one of the proteins required for life (Cytochrome-C) may be likened to the probability of a monkey writing out the history of humanity by randomly pushing the keys of a typewriter.

What evolution theory defends is exactly this nonsensical assertion. Yet, the examples above are only the probability calculations for the chance formation of a single protein. However, millions of similar impossible coincidences should have been realized consecutively in order for the evolution of life to be effected.

The probability of chance formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as low as zero. If life requires that certain sequence, it is likely to be realized only once in the whole life-time and space of the universe. Now it could be proposed that some metaphysical power(s) beyond our definition consciously enabled its formation. But to entertain such a proposition is, apparently, not appropriate for the modern enterprise of science. Therefore we have to fall back on the first hypothesis as the best we have at present.

If, as it appears, the theory of evolution is not justified by the information we have, how does it survive? Has questioning it become, among the specialists, a taboo which they violate at the risk of their reputation and their careers? If so, why? We will return to this question.

The problem of transitional forms

Another of many difficulties with the theory of evolution is that the theory requires there to exist or have existed in the past transitional forms. For example, if the theory claims, as it does, that life originated in the sea and then sea creatures were driven (by some force, let us say, a climatic change like a fall in sea-level) to move on to dry land, the theory must produce evidence (or at least convincing argument) of the transitional forms between the sea-creatures and the land-creatures they evolved into. Our present experience of, for example, fish, is that if they come out of the water, they very quickly die. We have no reason to believe that fish were so radically different aeons ago from what they are now. If anything, the evidence is all the other way: that fish as fish were the same then as now. So how could enough of them have lived long enough in shallow-water or no-water to establish in their gene pool the skill to evolve gills into lungs? Nobody can say that maybe some of these fish happened to acquire a lung at the end of the four-millionth year while they were in the throes of death. It is entirely nonsensical. But this nonsense is exactly what the evolutionists assert. The same problem arises when we look for transitional forms between land-bound reptiles and flying birds.

Some allegedly extinct intermediate transitional forms have turned out to exemplify only the temptations of forgery and distortion in the service of falsehood into which some scientists have allowed themselves to fall. For instance, the fish Coelacanth (Rhipitistian Crossopterigian) presented by evolutionists as a transitional form between marine and land creatures ,and supposedly extinct about 70 million years ago, was found alive and well in 1939 near Madagascar, and has been caught about 50 times since in the open seas. Furthermore, the organs that prompted the evolutionists to present the coelacanth as the transitional intermediate form (inner ear alcoves, head typed backbone and swimming bag), do not have these properties at all. The same is true for other fossils presented as transitional intermediate forms. The well-known nature scientist A.H. Clark acknowledges that, since we have no single evidence indicating a transition between fossils and living groups, we must accept that such transitional forms never existed.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or “created”. Although the evolutionists are embarrassed on scientific platforms, they do not have a hard time deceiving the ordinary person in the street, because the theory is so well-packaged. You draw an imaginary schema representing transition from water from land, you invent Latin words for the animal in water, and for its descendant on land, and you draw sketches of both (both wholly imaginary constructs), and the package is completed or, as we should rather say, fabricated. “Eusthenopteron transformed into first Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long evolution process.” If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white apron, you are half way to convincing most people. For the great many people who see reality through the media packaging of it, this kind of presentation is good enough to be truth: it is easy to believe, it makes no demand on consciousness, or reason, or conscience: we are all here by chance, we are not here by the will of a Creator to Whom we are answerable.

The most common package is, inevitably, the one that relates to human beings. A central feature is the string of related sketches (all imaginary constructions) of an all-ape, three-quarters-ape, half-ape/half-man figure, gradually ending in a drawing that looks more or less like a European male of average build an features. This is offered as our story, our beginning long ago, our present being now. This string of sketches will be found on virtually every classroom wall, from primary schools to secondary schools and in every popular textbook or encyclopedia which touches upon the subject, and in the form of stuffed exhibits in every science museum in the West.

In these drawings, half-ape half-human creatures are seen as a family. Having a hairy body, a slightly bent walking posture, and a face in between a man and an ape, these creatures are supposedly drawn from the fossils found by the evolutionist scientists. But the fossils found give information only about the bone structure and skeleton, and examination of the teeth will reveal information about the probable range of diet. The fossils tell us nothing at all about how hairy the body was that hung upon those bones, nor what kind of nose, ears, lips or hair would once have rested upon the particular skull. But the evolutionists’ sketches picture do, almost always, show the organs like nose, lips and ears, and these are drawn (to fit the theory) and do indeed show something half-man, half-ape. This is not science, it is fiction or, more precisely, it is myth. Another support for this fiction, and another proof that it is fiction, is that the same bundle of bones can give be made to give rise to quite different re-constructions, depending upon the particular theorist’s preference: for example, the three totally unlike re-constructions of the fossil called Australopithecus Robustus (Zinjanthropus). There is certainly a power behind these presentations of the theory, but it is not the power of reason disciplined by facts and evidence, but the power of myth-making imagination inspired by a particular ideology.

The ideological background to the theory

In order to understand why the evolution theory is promoted and defended so insistently, we need to look to the historical background behind it. Until the modern period, the intellectual life of Europe was basically subject to the authority of the Church. Starting from the 16th century, the order justified and underpinned by the authority of religious beliefs and principles started to conflict with the interests of certain social groups. Acquiring great wealth through commerce but having no political power, these groups began a long struggle to limit the authority of the Church. They did so not only on the political and social fronts but also on the philosophical front: religious beliefs and the authority of religion had to be weakened before the social-political system underpinned by religion could be radically reformed. Almost all the 18th century “enlightenment” intellectuals and 19th century positivists came from these secularizing groups and were funded and supported by them. (The French Revolution was the biggest single social transformation realized by their machinations.)

The space opened by the weakening or elimination of religious beliefs was filled by new ideologies generated by the same social groups. The first ideology was liberalism, followed by socialism which developed as a reaction to it. Later came fascism meddled with racism. Despite containing some opposing ideas, these ideologies were all by-products of the new secular system and stood on the same anti-religionist ground. None of them spoke of the man’s responsibility before his Creator or the obligation to organize personal and collective life according to His guidance. Conversely, the principles that necessitated belief in religion were harmful to the new ideologies. One of the most important of these principles is that man was created, as the Church had always held (following the same belief in Judaism), by God in His own image, for the purpose of doing His will and worshipping Him.

It was very noteworthy that socialism, the most radical and outspokenly anti-religious of the modern ideologies, showed a particular zeal for the theory of evolution. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a letter to his comrade Friedrich Engels (dated December 18, 1860) that this book presented the natural-historical basis for their critique of capitalism (Marx and Engels Letters, vol. 2, p.426).

Darwinism laid the basis for fascism which is one of the by-products of the new secular order. Holding some human races superior to the others, this notion proposed that some races were in advance of others in the evolutionary process. This trend called Social Darwinism inspired many racists from Arthur de Gobineau to Adolf Hitler. Darwin himself prepared the ground for racism by proposing that the white man was more advanced in evolutionary terms.

Besides socialism and fascism, the capitalist ideology dominant in the Western world and now in nearly the whole world, needs people to believe in evolution. To undermine people’s commitment to religion and moral principles, to reduce their aspirations and relationships to merely economic ones, it was necessary to convince them that man was not created by God as a morally responsible being. It is very noteworthy that major capitalist dynasties like Rockefeller and Carnegie come first among those who have granted funds and other support to the flourishing of Darwinism in the U.S.A. Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, in their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, explain how the Carnegie Institution was virtually aiming for the victory of the scientific cosmological vision over the old religious cosmologies. The Rockefeller Foundation supports the same materialist cosmology and serves the mission of “modern civilization’, aiming to confine the concepts of God and spirit to the mythology museum. The evolution propaganda promoted in the distinguished media organs of the West, and reputable science journals is a consequence of this ideological requirement.

Conclusion

No ideological program, whatever the illusions of its supporters, and whatever their means of promoting and packaging their untruths, can survive for ever. Precisely because man is God’s creature, made for nobility of being and action, he must and will seek truth, albeit temporarily deviated.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way. The transcendent consciousness ruling over the whole universe is the ultimate evidence of God’s existence. As a matter of fact, some eminent names in microbiology have come to the point where they cannot defend evolution any longer. Instead, another theory has begun to get a long overdue hearing among these scientists: the theory of conscious design. The scientists defending it remark that it is very evident that life has been created by a conscious designer.


Sorry, that article is written by someone who has no idea what evolution actually is.   Evolution doesn't even try to pretend to explain the transition between non-living forms and life.  The study of that is called Abiogenesis.

A well-known genetic and evolutionist, Richard B. Goldschimdt admits that there is no such a thing as the transitional intermediate form. He explains the differences in species by sudden leaps. Now to say that a species originated all of a sudden is tantamount to saying that it was consciously originated or “created”.

We now know of course that there are transitional intermediate forms, just go to any natural history museum.   Richard B. Goldschmidt was trying to explain how he though evolution worked, not that he didn't think it worked.  Some of his ideas just proved wrong, but this was based on what we knew as a civilization one-hundred years ago.  Using him as an anti-evolution proponent is crazy when he was much the opposite.

All the information revealed by modern biology shows that the origin of life, especially the molecular structure of living creatures, cannot be explained by coincidence in any way.

No serious scientist has posited that life is a coincidence either, that's another misunderstanding of evolution.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Kenneth White on July 09, 2013, 07:31:50 AM
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution
 article by Mario Seiglie

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?

Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.

The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.

Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.

It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.

The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood.

What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.

Amazing revelations about DNA

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica— an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

DNA language not the same as DNA molecule

Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.

If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" ( Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds , 1997, p. 71).

The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).

Information from an intelligent source

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.

As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" ( Darwin's Black Box , 1996, p. 41).

We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.

Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" ( Life Itself , 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

Evolution fails to provide answers

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!

Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident —by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." ( God: The Evidence , 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

Quality of genetic information the same

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?

Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).

The clincher

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.

Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.

This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

More witnesses

Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.

"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

"Fearfully and wonderfully made"

Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15 [13] For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
[14] I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
[15] My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

See All... [2], emphasis added).

Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN

[End]
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: clark thompson on July 11, 2013, 07:52:14 AM
It does make sense since Eve was taken from Adam flesh they would share the same DNA however God did have to alter the DNA to make her woman. The bible leads me to believe the rib was taken not to make woman but to make woman be able to complete man. I think that woman came from the dust of the ground the same way man did however she had man's rib to give him a sense of needing her. Adam and Eve had other childeren, it is taught and asumed that Cain and Abel were childern when their death came but they would have been adults since they had to do offerings themselves therefore Adam and Eve could have had many other childeren that are not mention but in one verse.Gen 5:4 states that Adam had other childeren other than Seth, Abel was dead Cain was lost so I not believe it is refering to them but those who had seeked to kill Cain and avenge their other brother Abel.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on November 26, 2013, 01:00:49 PM
Recently in the news, British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, admired by many scientists and unbelievers, thought it is impossible for God to created universe. The earth, he said, just happened by luck combination of earth-sun distance and solar mass and denied that God created the only planet in whole universe with LIFE just to please us human beings. 

Sad.

What's sad about using your head Erik? Coincidences happen all the time. The earth is billions of years old and so it would be foolish to think God created it. What are you saying? It took a God a billion years? That's not creation, that's evolution. Can you also explain the dinosaurs? It takes an old earth for these things. I've yet to hear once convincing argument against Evolution.


PS That's another of your Dead Links Erik.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on November 26, 2013, 02:47:07 PM

Tony,
 Brilliant! Science is just a word, all things are possible with God.

Next you'll be telling us that DNA doesn't matter.   )Say_what(
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: aquatic on November 26, 2013, 05:21:17 PM
I've yet to hear one convincing argument against Evolution.
The argument for evolution is a convincing argument against evolution.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on November 26, 2013, 08:08:11 PM
I've yet to hear one convincing argument against Evolution.
The argument for evolution is a convincing argument against evolution.


One of the best arguments for evolution is Christians. Because more and more they are accepting evolution. Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: aquatic on November 27, 2013, 10:43:11 AM
One of the best arguments for evolution is Christians. Because more and more they are accepting evolution. Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.

Evolution contradicts Genesis.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Evening + morning = 1 day. Not millions of years.

Exodus 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work
Exodus 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


God made man from the ground and woman from man's rib. Not an apelike ancestor.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



Evolution believers call God a liar.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on November 27, 2013, 11:03:45 AM
>>>
Next you'll be telling us that DNA doesn't matter.
<<<

On the contrary, DNA not only matters, it is the God instituted blueprint of living matter. It contains a divinely created genetic language that only a God could code. It's actually one of the proofs there is a God. If the mind is a computer, I would liken our DNA to sophisticated computer software of unfathomable coding 100 times more complex than anything that man has ever devised. The human body is matter, and although this matter can carry information, they are most definitely not the same as the information itself. To think this kind of symmetry and complexity could have created itself is of the spirit that makes intelligent men "morons" and wise men "fools."

1st Corinthians 1:20

Because the DNA data at the heart of life is not simply ordered (like crystals), but it is a complex, mind boggling building of biological engines as far away from chance, coincidence or human capability, as night is to day. The truth be known, DNA actually is another evidence of intelligent design and Divine creation. Indeed all creation "is" proof, so that we all stand without any possible excuse for not recognizing it.

Romans 1:18-20

Read Proverbs chapter 8. That which man is clumsily finding out, God designed and established. DNA, woman from one man, filling the earth. And everything after its own kind. Accident? Coincidence? Happenstance? Luck?

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on November 27, 2013, 11:17:05 AM
>>>
Coincidences happen all the time.
<<<

Yeah, but when they happen again and again and again and again, a proverbial "perfect storm" again and again without end, then the intelligent/noble/honest mind ultimately/consequently has to confess that it cannot be mere coincidence. There is being wise in our own conceits, and then there is spiritual wisdom.

Isaiah 5:21

True wisdom is in nobility, humbleness to accept rational explanation, rather than vainly chasing after a pipe dream of man.


Quote
>>>
The earth is billions of years old and so it would be foolish to think God created it.
<<<

Leaving aside the logic that the age of the earth doesn't prove who created it, with all of the evidence against the earth being billions of years old, man would have to be (in a word) "foolish" to ignore it--and he unfortunately is. At least a great many are.


Quote
>>>
Can you also explain the dinosaurs? It takes an old earth for these things.
<<<

What's to explain? They lived, and then they died out. They were just animals like every other animal on the planet. large animals become extinct sometimes. Small ones too. That's a fact, not a mystery!

http://mountainretreatorg.net/faq/dino.html

You want science? Are you aware that red blood cells and hemoglobin have been occasionally found in some unfossilized dinosaur bones? Are you also aware that these could not last more than a few thousand years, and absolutely not the 60 million plus years that evolutionists "claim" the last dinosaur lived? I mean it's not like the truth isn't out there, it's that man doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't take an old earth for dinosaurs to be prehistoric, it merely takes an old myth.


Quote
>>>
I've yet to hear once convincing argument against Evolution.
<<<

And I've yet to hear one convincing argument (based solely on facts and not conjecture and assumptions) for evolution. So, no matter where you go, there you are.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on November 27, 2013, 11:25:36 AM
>>>
One of the best arguments for evolution is Christians. Because more and more they are accepting evolution.
<<<

OR, more and more people who do not have the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit to receive truth, are calling themselves Christian.


Quote
>>>
Evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.
<<<

OR, evolution "is" actually incompatible with true Christianity built upon the authority of the word of God, but is compatible with a false Christianity built upon the authority of men. It's not like Christ never warned His people about Pseudo-Christians deceiving many.

Matthew 7:15-20

It's not a surprise to me that evolution is not incompatible with faithful Christianity, yet many professing Christians accept it. No surprise at all.

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Maurice on November 28, 2013, 06:50:04 AM
Tony,
  I respect your tenacity, but you are wrong about old earth and you ignore the science. I realize that you are knowledgeable about some things, but you don't know everything. For example, from the radioactive decay, we know that the world is billions of years old. Now that's a fact, not Christian faith. So while you talk a good game, you lack the substance to prove your points. The world is old, no matter how you try to spin it, you can't get past the dating process.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Erik Diamond on November 28, 2013, 07:25:23 AM
I am not responsible for "dead" link to an article provided by Yahoo News. They must have either archived or removed it.

I agreed with what Tony said here. It is called faith. God is not limited by science. In fact, He created it! 

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Diane Moody on November 28, 2013, 11:10:57 AM
Tony,
  I respect your tenacity,

Maurice, forget the tenacity, look at the facts, the logic and the house of cards evolution is built upon. Maybe then you will find that it is you and the evolutionists that are ignoring the science. The real point is not about what Tony knows, it's about what evolutionists don't know. And yet they teach all these things as if they are all proven facts. They are not proven, nor can they be. So what does that leave you with? And that's what it's really all about. I'll put my Christian faith up against it any day of the week.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: John on November 28, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote
For example, from the radioactive decay, we know that the world is billions of years old.

First, Radiocarbon dating isn't used to date rocks to determine the age of the earth, it is used on organic remains and only yields radiocarbon years in the thousands. The radiometric dating that yields billions of radiometric years is the potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium, and these methods you must concede a bias that the world is actually that old, otherwise they are useless. A properly used radiocarbon method could be very useful in dating organic matter, but the assumptions that go into the method must be valid, and that is the big sticking point. It has been shown that where carbon dating is used against known dates (from Egypt), the radiocarbon years are often inaccurate. 

Radiocarbon dating has many assumptions, one of which is the relative quantities of C-14 to total Carbon, and whether the atmosphere was in equilibrium in regards to C-14. Other issues are whether the animal/plant that lived contained equivalent fractions of C-14 to total carbon as the atmosphere at large, was carbon gained/lost through other means beyond radioactivity after death, and is the decay rate of C-14 a constant. The real bugaboo with radiocarbon dating is that the fraction of C-14 to total carbon in the atmosphere has not been a constant and it isn't possible to know what the ratio was at the time an animal died.

Since the atmosphere at the time of death isn't known, it is assumed - evolutionists simply assume it was the same as it is today. They simply state that the atmosphere had the same ratio of C-14 to C-12 it has in the 1940's (pre-atomic testing levels). The result of all this is that because evolutionists are looking for long ages their assumptions are applied to the calculation that yields carbon dates in the range of 50,000 radiocarbon years. A very minor adjustment in their assumptions can dramatically alter the result - to about 4500 years. Again, it is a matter of personal biases and assumptions, which have been shown to be incorrect in certain instances, so it is a matter of men and women be willing to overcome their bias against a young earth.

If you really want to know how old the earth is you can find the answer in the genealogies listed in the Bible that go back to Adam.  These genealogies don't use any isotopes and are completely accurate. The result is a young-earth with Adam created in 11,013BC. The plant and animal life that is dated cannot be older than this date - so if we are going to have a bias, and we all do, let's be sure to ground our assumptions against something unchangeable, true and accurate. Where evolutionists have faith in the power of time + chance, Christians should have their faith in the word of God.

john
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tony Warren on November 29, 2013, 08:56:58 AM
>>>
Tony,
  I respect your tenacity, but you are wrong about old earth and you ignore the science.
<<<

My resolve, persistence and intransigence is not built upon blind faith, I delve into this with my eyes wide open to allow the light of the Spirit of truth to shine in. As opposed to most evolutionists, who are not only closed-minded, but adversarial to the truth.

As I said in previous posts, this is not really science, it's theory put together by supposition and conjecture, with a few "out of context" facts thrown in for flavor. It is no more a fact that the world is billions of years old, than it is a fact man evolved from monkeys. It is the convoluted mind of vain contemplative and generalizing conjecture. In a word, "Theory." Yes, it is well disguised as a substantiated and supported explanation for our existence, but despite redefining terms it is still just theory--and all that this word entails.


Quote
>>>
I realize that you are knowledgeable about some things, but you don't know everything.
<<<

Now see, that is a FACT! Note the difference? One is absolutely unquestionably true, and the other is a philosophical hypothesis--a presumptive supposition or theory.

I don't presume to know everything, but I know when a fact is not a fact. And I know the truth will set you free. And I know to man, his way always seems like the right way, but that is because his heart and mind is vain.

Proverbs 21:2

We don't have to know everything, but we have to have the Spirit of truth, else the heart is deceitful above all things, so that we can't know the depths of its debauchery?
 
 
Quote
>>>
For example, from the radioactive decay, we know that the world is billions of years old. Now that's a fact, not Christian faith.
<<<

That is decidedly not a fact. No doubt you're parroting something you read somewhere (like most people). But you are really uninformed. But the fact is, He (helium) seeps into our atmosphere from natural radioactive decay from rocks that (I assume) you're speaking about, and (relatively) not much of it escapes the atmosphere (regardless of what you've heard). What you clearly don't understand is that the total amount in the atmosphere is only about 1/2000 of what would be expected if the world were really billions of years old. This seepage takes place "relatively" quickly, and yet it is a fact that so much He remains in rocks that it couldn’t have had time (billions of years) to escape or seep out. The rate of loss of He from the atmosphere is less than the rate at which He is entering the atmosphere. You know what that means, right? So while you claim "you know that the world is billions of years old and that this is a fact," that's not really fact at all, and not even real science. The real scientific evidence indicate a young earth. In fact, most atmospheric scientists have downgraded their previous ideas from billions to millions precisely because they had to relent, understanding its impossibility given the evidence. In time, maybe even they will get it right.

So what you've really got is the faith of those who hold to the religion of evolution. And it takes far more faith (humanisticly speaking) to believe in that religion with no solid foundation, than in Christianity. Because one is truth and the other a web and tissue of lies.


Quote
>>>
So while you talk a good game, you lack the substance to prove your points. The world is old, no matter how you try to spin it, you can't get past the dating process.
<<<

The dating process is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies. The contradictions are the result of truth and supposition dwelling in the same space, and inconsistency has been shown to be the mother of all errors. Perhaps to you, I am just "talking a good game." But to me and conscientious Christians, it is not about gamesmanship, it's about the integrity of the word of God, the Spirit of truth and real science. It's also about the blindness of the sinful man (or man of sin) ruling in God's stead. Hard to get past "that" dating process.


"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Christopher Henson on March 01, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
>>>
Tony,
  I respect your tenacity, but you are wrong about old earth and you ignore the science.
<<<

My resolve, persistence and intransigence is not built upon blind faith, I delve into this with my eyes wide open to allow the light of the Spirit of truth to shine in. As opposed to most evolutionists, who are not only closed-minded, but adversarial to the truth.

As I said in previous posts, this is not really science, it's theory put together by supposition and conjecture, with a few "out of context" facts thrown in for flavor. It is no more a fact that the world is billions of years old, than it is a fact man evolved from monkeys. It is the convoluted mind of vain contemplative and generalizing conjecture. In a word, "Theory." Yes, it is well disguised as a substantiated and supported explanation for our existence, but despite redefining terms it is still just theory--and all that this word entails.


Facts don't change Maurice. Like the Mars blueberry fiasco. It never was fact, never even a good theory, but it was published like it was. And now what? Back to the drawing board?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/mars-blueberries-water-meteorites_n_4866189.html?utm_hp_ref=science&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl9%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D449268


I don't understand how so many people place so much trust in these people when they keep changing their opinions and fudging on the so called facts. Tony's right. None of what they say is a fact. It's nothing more than an educated guess. And an educated guess is still a guess.

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Melanie on April 26, 2014, 05:03:32 AM
For those of you who haven't seen it yet, here's an excellent piece demonstrating the blind faith of Evolutionists. Unassailable that it's blind faith.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolution_versus_god.shtml

Clearly, these people are just repeating what they've heard and holding blindly to it because they show they don't really know a thing about it.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: SavedByGrace on July 14, 2014, 04:25:28 PM
I just finished reading this very interesting thread. 
I then read this masterpiece on Evolution, which was a great culmination of everything said before. 

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolve1.html

My question now is:

Should we as Christians watch documentaries from History Channel, Nova, Nature, Quest, Discovery, Animal Planet and the like, where Evolution and the Old-Earth theory is being readily proclaimed? 

Bill
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Christopher Henson on July 15, 2014, 03:39:02 AM

Should we as Christians watch documentaries from History Channel, Nova, Nature, Quest, Discovery, Animal Planet and the like, where Evolution and the Old-Earth theory is being readily proclaimed? 

Bill


I think so. Because such programs demonstrate the vanity and futility of man and the glory of God in creating such intricate and different animals, worlds and species. You can't help but be impressed. I look at the sun, moon and stars as all giving evidence of this great creator. When I hear them attribute all this to accidental evolution, it just confirms God's word that they are blind and deluded.

But when I watch these programs, I always think, "How Magnificent God is to have done all these things and have them all work together so flawlessly!" It's just amazing to me! Which leaves me with only one conclusion. It could only happen because there is a God. I think others, led by God, see it that way too.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: SavedByGrace on July 16, 2014, 11:45:39 PM
Christopher,

I am not disagreeing with you, but just interjecting another thought.

In watching a lot of documentaries that talk about the evolution theory, we as Christians are desensitizing ourselves against creationism, in a slow but subtle way.  I am wondering what Jesus would say upon watching one of these documentaries.  Would he say “that was really glorifying to my father” or would he turn up his nose in total disgust?

Just thinking out loud,
Bill
  )Say_what(
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Hammerle Labinowic on July 17, 2014, 06:02:31 AM

Evolutionists are just another branch of the wicked heart of man. If those theories were not around, man would create something else to replace them, because unsaved man finds his best joy in rebelling against God.

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king." I Samuel 15:23

Is evolution a religion? Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: SavedByGrace on August 02, 2014, 07:11:20 PM

Evolutionists are just another branch of the wicked heart of man. If those theories were not around, man would create something else to replace them, because unsaved man finds his best joy in rebelling against God.

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king." I Samuel 15:23

Is evolution a religion? Yes, it is.

 :iagree:  After giving this subject some serious thought, I no longer watch shows where Evolution and the Old-Earth theory is being readily proclaimed.  I am pressing toward watching less and less TV but I am not ready to cut it off cold-turkey yet.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: SavedByGrace on August 15, 2014, 10:49:17 PM
I just finished reading the paper written by Tony, back in 1995, which is really to the point about evolution and supports my decision on not watching PBS movies that promote evolution.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/dino.html

I hope that others will think long and hard about this too. :thinker:


Should we as Christians watch documentaries from History Channel, Nova, Nature, Quest, Discovery, Animal Planet and the like, where Evolution and the Old-Earth theory is being readily proclaimed? 

Bill

I think so. Because such programs demonstrate the vanity and futility of man and the glory of God in creating such intricate and different animals, worlds and species. You can't help but be impressed. I look at the sun, moon and stars as all giving evidence of this great creator. When I hear them attribute all this to accidental evolution, it just confirms God's word that they are blind and deluded.

But when I watch these programs, I always think, "How Magnificent God is to have done all these things and have them all work together so flawlessly!" It's just amazing to me! Which leaves me with only one conclusion. It could only happen because there is a God. I think others, led by God, see it that way too.

Christopher,
After reading Tony's article, I am now at the point that I strongly disagree with you.
Christians need avoid such anti-Christian documentaries that just cannot help but to influence us with the constant bombardment of the propaganda from these nature shows.

A quote from Tony:
One of the problems with man is that when he hears the same teaching, presented as fact over and over again, he will inevitably start to believe it.

Bill
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Robert Powell on September 24, 2014, 12:55:20 PM

A quote from Tony:
One of the problems with man is that when he hears the same teaching, presented as fact over and over again, he will inevitably start to believe it.

Bill

True, very true. And that's why so many Christians are beginning to call themselves evolutionists. But Christians who believe in Evolution are "inconsistent" in their beliefs and certainly not scientific. What does it take to be a good scientist? You test ideas carefully, you honestly evaluate the facts without prejudice, you follow the evidence wherever it leads and you question everything. This is what they often proudly claim makes a good scientist. But this is precisely what the vast majority of scientists do not do. They don't test carefully or receive and evaluate the facts without prejudice. They clearly don't follow the evidence wherever it leads them, instead they guide it wherever they want it to go. And they most certainly do not question everything, because if they did they would have seen long ago that many of their theories are inconsistent when questioned. So I often wonder if Christians that believe in Evolution are dumber than atheists. You could certainly make a case for that. Because there is more inconsistency in their views than in atheists views. And three times as many contradictions to who they claim they are.


Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Melanie on September 28, 2014, 11:15:27 AM

Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?
A leading creationist answers an often-asked question.
by Dr. Duane Gish on September 1, 1989

https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/is-it-possible-to-be-a-christian-and-an-evolutionist/
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Peng Bao on September 30, 2014, 06:26:11 AM

True, very true. And that's why so many Christians are beginning to call themselves evolutionists. But Christians who believe in Evolution are "inconsistent" in their beliefs and certainly not scientific. What does it take to be a good scientist? You test ideas carefully, you honestly evaluate the facts without prejudice, you follow the evidence wherever it leads and you question everything. This is what they often proudly claim makes a good scientist. But this is precisely what the vast majority of scientists do not do. They don't test carefully or receive and evaluate the facts without prejudice. They clearly don't follow the evidence wherever it leads them, instead they guide it wherever they want it to go. And they most certainly do not question everything, because if they did they would have seen long ago that many of their theories are inconsistent when questioned.


 )GoodPopst(  The problem with most people is that they believe everything they hear about evolution.


http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

Diamonds, A Creationists Best Friend!

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Gerry on January 27, 2019, 07:36:21 AM

I have a friend who is a Christian and also believes in Evolution. after reading this thread I asked him how he could reconcile the truth of God's word of creation with millions of years of evolution and survival of the fittest? He said that evolution and Christianity are totally compatible. He believes in theistic evolution. Is that true and or is there anyone here who thinks that doctrine is a biblical stance? Thanks.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Stan Pat on January 27, 2019, 06:38:37 PM
Hi Gerry,
    This link explains our position using a list of 10 dangers of this doctrine of Theistic evolution. You might ask your friend to read this.

https://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Granny on January 28, 2019, 10:44:03 AM
What "exactly" is Theistic Evolution? If we believe the world is millions of years old, does that make us Theistic Evolutionists?
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Dana Pescator on January 28, 2019, 11:27:55 AM
I just finished reading this very interesting thread. 
I then read this masterpiece on Evolution, which was a great culmination of everything said before. 

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolve1.html

Bill


 )iagree(  Part 2, the scientific defense is not too shabby also.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/evolve2.html

Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Tra Millwood on January 29, 2019, 10:34:26 AM
What "exactly" is Theistic Evolution? If we believe the world is millions of years old, does that make us Theistic Evolutionists?

Granny,
   Theistic Evolution is specifically evolutionary creationism. It is basically saying God created the world and everything in it by process of Evolution. For all intents and purposes, it's a compromise, the consequences of which I believe are the devastation of traditional Christian beliefs. Christians started falling into this trap when they bought into the idea that this was real science and not theory. However, the theory of evolution is not science. That myth is something that I agree wholeheartedly with Tony Warren on. we as a country have been brainwashed on this issue and I fear many Christians attempt to bridge the gap of believing the Evolutionists and believing the Bible by calling this collusion Theistic Evolution. That way they think they can have the best of both worlds. But it doesn't work that way.
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Reformer on January 29, 2019, 06:54:04 PM
From the search:

The Genesis Account of Creation vs. Theistic Evolution
Genesis contains most of what the Bible reveals on the origin of the Universe. Because of its significance, the Genesis account occupies a central position in discussions of the origin and development of life. While the Bible-believer accepts it as the only reliable record of Creation, the atheist dismisses and ridicules Genesis as unscientific Jewish folklore. Theistic Evolution is especially dangerous because it forces the biblical record into an impossible compromise. by Brad T. Bromling, M.A.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/genesis_account_of_creation.shtml
Title: Re: Evolution of Man Vs The Bible and Science
Post by: Laura Tomlinson on January 30, 2019, 05:46:09 AM
What "exactly" is Theistic Evolution? If we believe the world is millions of years old, does that make us Theistic Evolutionists?

I guess the question is, do you believe the world is millions of years old? And do you believe God created the world in millions of years?