hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[RobRoy]

Heh, heh... I just realized I have broken my own rule by posting on an Evolution/ID thread with over 200 posts.

My bad.

Have fun folks... 8^>

[WildTurkey]

can understand how Rob Roy feels. One often gets a dreaded sense of deja vu on the evolution threads -- kind of a "been there, done that already" feeling.... Indeed, as you say, one does not want "to fight the same battles over and again."

Perhaps he still has to fight that same old battle because he is attacking from a false premise.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your kind reply and your encouragments!

What is really "new" to the debate lately is that the same thing really does seem to be happening to the evolution side of this as happened to Dan Rather. It is a new and exciting twist, and another reason to praise the internet as a way to really disseminate information. I think it is also why Bush won the election. Lies just do not have the legs they used to.

In other words, for me the story here is that the debate (fight) has spilled from the confines of the dark and controlled auditorium out into the broad dailight of the street. Many of the combatants are rather embarrassed by the now obvious puppet strings dangling from their bodies.

I agree. The big story is that conventional media (and in this case, science journals) can no longer avoid critical inquiry.

It wasn't so very long ago that one could not easily locate a subject, an author - do his own fact-checking. The internet has changed our basic attitudes by empowering us to look behind the curtain.

[Red Sea Swimmer]

The Old Testament is layered with many divine truths interspersed with historical records such as lots of characters, dates, places, events, quotes, laws etc. etc.

The subject of prophecy in the Old Testament is little understood by most people. It takes years of study and certain life experiences to understand the prophetic parts of the Real Testament.

The prophecies said that at some point in human history a male figure would be revealed as the righteous redeemer, prince of peace, anointed one.

[Alamo-Girl]

I know you are a veteran of these science threads, but your posts are ones I always stop to read - and usually bookmark, too. Thank you so much for your agreement and encouragement!

[JohnnyM]

Here's the question I have. My topic of interest is not in debunking evolution or proving ID. My argument is focused on those who see evolution and the Bible being compatible. Either you believe the Bible which in terms of time, order of events, and method of creation are totally incompatible with evolution. If you see the Bible as worthless or just a book written be men with no divine inspiration, than the argument is not directed at you.

From a logical standpoint, I see this as a valid discussion. If the Bible says 2 + 2 = 5 and math says 2 + 2 = 4, than the Bible believers will say 5 till their blue in the face, however it is illogical to assert that they are both true or compatible. That is the heart of the issue.

JM

[general_re]

I really don't understand AG's argument. Do you?

Yes.

:^)

More seriously, I understand your frustration, but sometimes it's best to be a bit philosophical about these things. As nearly as I can tell, the blow-by-blow went something like this: he made some point, you challenged him to back it up, he declined, you suggested that his refusal was because he can't do so. And having made that final point, you might as well realize that you can't make someone answer you, so perhaps it's best to just leave it there - if you want to conclude that he can't support his contention, whatever it was, that's fine, but there's not much point in harping on it after that. Everyone's made their positions clear, neither of you are changing your minds, so why not move on? Fewer ulcers that way, trust me, especially because you'll see that again and again ;)

[JohnnyM]

wow. Unable to answer a simple question.

Let me reword it for you. Does the Bible state that the Sun was created on the 4th day?

Does the Bible state that land animals were created after birds?

JM

[WildTurkey]

Whatever. Whenever someone makes a baseless claim in the argument, and then claims he doesn't want to fight the fight again he is implying that he has bases for his claim (since he has already fought the battle) and he wishes to leave that impression on others. Sorry.

[WildTurkey]

so perhaps it's best to just leave it there

I think I did. Then Alamo-Girl came in and opened up this whole discussion.

[general_re]

Whenever someone makes a baseless claim in the argument, and then claims he doesn't want to fight the fight again he is implying that he has bases for his claim (since he has already fought the battle) and he wishes to leave that impression on others.

And you're perfectly right to point out how convenient that is for the other person. But where else can you go after that? Might as well chalk that one up as a forfeit victory and move on to the next argument, which will also look familiar to you, most likely ;)

[WildTurkey]

It wasn't so very long ago that one could not easily locate a subject, an author - do his own fact-checking. The internet has changed our basic attitudes by empowering us to look behind the curtain.

The internet has empowered one to bypass basic scientific principles and prove your point based on the false science spouted by some kook selling DVD's.

[JohnnyM]

One more thing. I dont care about who has the better propaganda machine. That is not the issue. The issue is what is the Truth? Is it evolution or the Bible? These two are not compatible. They cannot both be true. That is the point I am trying to make. If you want evolution to trump the Bible, then fine, but to say the two are in agreement is not logical. The keyboard cannot both exist and not exist. One party has the Truth, irregardless of who wins the propaganda race.

JM

[WildTurkey]

And you're perfectly right to point out how convenient that is for the other person. But where else can you go after that? Might as well chalk that one up as a forfeit victory and move on to the next argument, which will also look familiar to you, most likely ;)

Uh, like I did. The rest of this has been a discussion provoked by Alamo-Girl.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for post and for your question, which is primarily a theological question and I shall respond accordingly.

My argument is focused on those who see evolution and the Bible being compatible. Either you believe the Bible which in terms of time, order of events, and method of creation are totally incompatible with evolution. If you see the Bible as worthless or just a book written be men with no divine inspiration, than the argument is not directed at you.

I see the Scriptures as inerrant and Jesus Christ as the living, eternal Word of God made flesh (John 1, Rev 19)

I also see that God is the Creator of all that there is, the heavens declare His glory and we are to take notice of it. (Psalms 19:1, Romans 1:20)

Since He is both the author of Creation and of Scripture - I expect them to agree and have never been disappointed.

For instance, under relativity and the inflationary theory, six days at the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe is equal to roughly 14 billion years from our space/time coordinates. Earth time in years and days (our coordinates) begins with Adam and some 6000 years have elapsed since Genesis 4:1. Genesis 1-3 addresses events in both the spiritual realm and the physical realm (compare Genesis 2:9 and Revelation 2:7).

Age of the Universe

Genesis 1 - mechanical, literal and poetic translations

My article on Origins and Scriptures

My article on Evolution through the Back Door

So as you can see, I do not have an issue between inerrant Scripture and physical evidence in the Universe. Others might, particularly those who date the age of the universe at 6000 years plus 6 days from our space/time coordinates - but then again, God could have created it all last Thursday.

Metaphysical naturalism (atheism) is also a religion. You might be interested in my challenges to them to prove that they are not religious, nine points

[WildTurkey]

I thought you said you weren't interested in debunking evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Oops. My link to those 9 points was bad. Here it is:

Challenges

[JohnnyM]

I am interested in debunking the idea that evolution and the Scripture are compatible. Big difference.

JM

[WildTurkey]

I am interested in debunking the idea that evolution and the Scripture are compatible. Big difference.

But your contention is that the Scripture is Truth, ergo evolution is false, correct?

[Alamo-Girl]

I believe the last battleground for errors wrt evolution in biology textbooks was in Texas. Here's an article on that one: Dallas News

I'm not aware of any organized effort to drop evolution altogether from textbooks.