hysterical Darwinites panic

crosswalk ^ | 2004 | creationist

[JohnnyM]

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

JM

[JohnnyM]

sorry for the double post.

I do believe that evolution is false, because it conflicts with Scripture. However, I am not debating the truthfulness of evolution, but its compatibility with Scripture. I can believe 2 + 2 = 4, and you can believe 2 + 2 = 5. We can show facts and figures, pretty charts, and so forth showing our reasoning, but what we cannot do is say that we are both right. With our analogy, I am not saying that 2 + 2 = 5, but that 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5.

JM

[PaRebel]

My thoughts exactly. Doesn't the erudition leave one speechless.

[JohnnyM]

sorry for the double post.

I do believe that evolution is false, because it conflicts with Scripture. However, I am not debating the truthfulness of evolution, but its compatibility with Scripture. I can believe 2 + 2 = 4, and you can believe 2 + 2 = 5. We can show facts and figures, pretty charts, and so forth showing our reasoning, but what we cannot do is say that we are both right. With our analogy, I am not saying that 2 + 2 = 5, but that 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5.

JM

[Finny]

Sorry, in order to believe your "plain and rational" interpretation, I have to deny too many other things that God has made visible to mankind, and simultaneously conclude that He is perverse and misleading. SO -- from a clear and rational point of view, there is clearly something in how Genesis was written that we need to reassess. The mistake and challenge is ours, not God's.

You didn't address two points: 1) Sun-centered solar system incompatible with the Bible; and 2) 10:2 Ecclesiastes that in any "clear and rational" reading says that people shouldn't opt to veer to the left, but should always veer to the right. (Of course, I take it to mean that God says liberals are fools! ;^)

[betty boop]

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.

At bottom, RobRoy, what I suspect is happening is a kind of broad cultural backlash. The progressive Left (i.e., "post-modernism" -- which includes folks in science and the arts and letters who, while maybe not professing to be members of that category, still have imbibed a large number of ideas from post-modernist thinkers [more or less unconsciously] about the nature of God, man, and society) -- is slipping into the irrelevance it so richly deserves. The Internet has facilitated this process; for it makes it far more difficult to control information. And of course, the control of information is an indispensable bulwark of the power of the "status quo."

Repression of thought, curbs on speech, the kind of "diversity" that makes one walk in lock-step to the approved nostrums of elites, authoritarianism/totalitarianism of all stripes, all seem to be on the losing side of history right now. President Bush's "liberty initiatives" aren't so much as cutting against the grain, but riding the tide of changing global circumstances, which are driven by intellectual, cultural, political, and ideological change.

It's as if folks had finally started taking C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man quite seriously, and are fighting back. In the process, culturally it seems we are going back to, and reappraising our "roots" -- which derive from the traditions of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome.

This is what makes for the conflict and general loss of civility of debate these days. Careers are on the line, reputations are at stake -- and also the ability to wield power.

Well, them be just some miscellaneous thoughts of my own, FWTW. Thanks for your post!

[WildTurkey]

Another thread opened on the Mr. Meyer's controversy (same as this one). Here we go again!

[JohnnyM]

"1) Sun-centered solar system incompatible with the Bible"

I disgaree, could you please cite passages that would lead you to believe this? Also, you didnt answer the questions I posed on Genesis 1 in regards to ordering of events.

And yes, God was saying liberals are fools :)

JM

[JohnnyM]

"So as you can see, I do not have an issue between inerrant Scripture and physical evidence in the Universe."

I did not read all the links you pointed to. I did focus on your origins and Scripture section, so please correct me if I have overlooked something. What I saw still did not explain the ordering of events in the Bible and in evolution. In fact, you keep the ordering of the Bible in tact in your explanation, but evolution would have a problem with this, because how could plants exist without the Sun. Also evolution has birds evolving from land animals, yet land animals appeared after birds in the creation account.

I know you probably dont want to get into this discussion, but this is the heart of my discourse on these threads.

JM

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

All of the ordering issues are addressed in that "Origins and Scriptures" article (it goes day by day and then into the patriarchs) - most of them are also addressed in the "Age of the Universe" article.

[RightWingNilla]

I have broken my own rule by posting on an Evolution/ID thread with over 200 posts.

200? Bah. Things just start heating up around post 500.

[gobucks]

This is what makes for the conflict and general loss of civility of debate these days. Careers are on the line, reputations are at stake -- and also the ability to wield power.

Beautiful prose and thanks for the ping. May I delicately add, 'a potential loss of the moral high ground'.

For though the fame motive plays a big role, at root, the morals debate is driving much of this too. The high elite know the party is coming to a close, and they don't like it one bit. They have been the mill owners of moral fibre for awhile now, but the mills are subject competition. Viva la internet!

[JohnnyM]

could you point me to where they are. I cannot find them.

JM

[metacognative]

"If you insist on teaching your children that Man is not the product of evolution...Zoos are now seen as havens for endangered species
[like you church people]"
Daniel Dennett, page 519, 1995
also:
"If you want to teach your children...God. We will stand firmly opposed to you."

The 'we' here is the ten percent [or less] of the population like Dennett, Dawkins, the ACLU and assorted darwinuts like George Soros

I don't care to debate this "zoos for christians' meme.
It shows how dangerous this idea really is....

[WildTurkey]

You left out all the lies and the false-science promoted by the anti-evolutionists.

[WildTurkey]

because how could plants exist without the Sun.

Dr. Walt Brown explains it all in how light was created by deaccelerating electrons similar to what happens with radio antenna.

[WildTurkey]

because how could plants exist without the Sun.

Uh, DAY ONE. God created light! Plants use light! Right! They don't need sunlight. We have lots of dopers growing their marijuana under grow lights and their plants never see the sun.

[JohnnyM]

what about the warmth of the Sun? Life on this planet cannot exist without the Sun, or are you saying it can?

JM

[general_re]

The rest of this has been a discussion provoked by Alamo-Girl.

She's trying to help.

[WildTurkey]

what about the warmth of the Sun? Life on this planet cannot exist without the Sun, or are you saying it can?

Our "warmth" is received via infra-red, visible and ultra-violet light. Dr. Walt Brown explains how these multiple frequencies are generated by the deaccelerating electrons.