Posted on 01/18/2007 1:00:43 PM PST by scottdeus12
Darwin put forward his claim that human beings and apes descended from a common ancestor in his book The Descent of Man, published in 1871. From that time until now, the followers of Darwin's path have tried to support this claim. But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field.
The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."
(Excerpt) Read more at darwinismrefuted.com ...
So do you accept evolution for animals and plants?
I don't include fungi because they were not listed in Genesis and thus were presumably free to evolve, even according to literalists.
The Wiki aticle discusses the equating of a Ukrainian word "chornobyl" with the Russian word "chernobyl"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_in_the_popular_consciousness
(The Pharisee, not the King.)
May you one day evolve into your own version of Saint Paul.
They all seem to belong to the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. And except for Michael (god is dead) Behe and Gonzalez they all seem to have Doctorates in philosophy, theology, or some such frippery.
It's strange that you'd point to 'real scientists' with such qualifications ...
I am no longer willing to discuss opinions about Creationism. I just want to go pure textualist and spell out, using Scripture Alone - Sola Scriptura - PRECISELY what Genesis contains.
Not what it MEANS according to some wag or other, just what it SAYS.
What it says is very interesting.
But there are problems with the text itself.
The problem of the birds is particularly alarming.
Read literally, the world is a bubble created in the primeval water, separted from the water by a "firmament" in which the stars, moon and sun (and planets, which are just called "stars") are placed. The water is BEYOND the firmament, and still there. When God flooded the world, he opened the floodgates above and the water flooded down from BEYOND THE SUN AND THE STARS (which are IN the firmament, but the water is beyond it). After the Noah's Ark incident, God promised to never do it again, but he COULD, which is why he puts the rainbow there to remind him and us of the covenant that he WON'T. So, the gates are still up there, and the water is still out there.
Our radiotelescopes, when they reach the edge of creation, should find a solid wall of some sort, with water beyond. In all directions.
That's Genesis.
There's more.
Not so fast, Tovorich,
Was TV newsie
The conventional explanation for the name Chernobyl has been that it means black grass or black stalks. In linking the events of the nuclear accident to biblical prophesies, it has been claimed that name of the city comes rather from an Ukrainian word chornobyl, and that this word refers to the mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris). Mugwort is a close relative of wormwood (Artemisia absinthium). As a result, chornobyl has been translated by some to be the equivalent of the English name wormwood.
This translation is a matter of extreme controversy for some who wish to discredit the connection but is simply to argue the difference between "red" and "burgundy" when they are interchangable in the overall context used to describe. The same would apply with reference to a "star" as the equivalent of an "uncontrolled nuclear meltdown" like Chernobyl. And "burning as a lamp" certainly is a good analogy for a relatively small contained nuclear reaction burning on Earth when compared with the "great stars" in heaven. Therefore, these analogies would seem to describe the disaster at Chernobyl for many who read the Bible.
From your link. This is TOTAL garbage!
Life on Earth is divided into five (or sometimes six) kingdoms by scientists. We have so far concentrated mainly on the greatest kingdom, that of animals. In the preceding chapters, we considered the origin of life itself, studying proteins, genetic information, cell structure and bacteria, issues that are related with two other kingdoms, Prokaryotae and Protista. But at this point there is another important matter we need to concentrate on-the origin of the plant kingdom (Plantae).
We find the same picture in the origin of plants as we met when examining the origin of animals. Plants possess exceedingly complex structures, and it is not possible for these to come about by chance effects and for them to evolve into one another. The fossil record shows that the different classes of plants emerged all of a sudden in the world, each with its own particular characteristics, and with no period of evolution behind it.
--No creationist can accept common descent.....it goes against the biblical account of creation.--
That is because those early writers hadn't figured out evolution, yet.
--So if a Muslim believes that 2+2=4, does that mean we shouldn't believe it because he's a Muslim?--
I thought they believed 2+2=5?
"The page I posted is Darwinism Refuted, Gum. Not convert to Islam."
So, it would be nice if he had some science qualifications.
Here's a Wiki article about him under his real name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
!!Plagiarism Alert!!
MindBender26's post is word for word from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_in_the_popular_consciousness
Why do I remind you of Saul?
I have asked for a discussion exclusively on the terrain of the advocates of Creationism. I have agreed to leave out ALL references to EVERY OTHER THING other than Scripture Alone - Sola Scriptura - and I have even agreed, without a fuss, to use the King James Version of the Holy Bible, not some modern tendentious translation, and not the Catholic or Jewish translations (which I personally believe to be more accurate than the KJV).
I know Protestants cherish the KJV above all other Bibles, and I am perfectly willing to stipulate to it, and only it.
So, I've cleared away ALL of the deadwood.
No arguments about SCIENCE.
No extrinsic arguments.
One pure text, using Scripture Alone - the ACTUAL WORDS of Scripture, as inspired by God.
I haven't even promised an argument, just said we will read it for what it literally SAYS.
And you compare me to a man who sent Jews to their deaths.
Nice.
But ON WHAT BASIS do you do so?
I am willing to discuss the subject with you ENTIRELY ON YOUR TERMS, using JUST THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, in the KING JAMES TRANSLATION.
Instead of rolling up your sleeves and saying "let's go", confident that your inspired text, read directly, will show the right and the light, you compare me to a murderer.
Are you afraid to read your Bible literally with me?
Do you fear that Scripture Alone, Sola Scriptura, doesn't really say what you want it to say?
All I said is "Come, let us READ IT, YOUR FAVORITE VERSION OF IT, and we'll use JUST THAT, JUST THE WORDS."
And inviting you to open the King James Version of the Bible with you reminds you of Saul of Tarsus, tormentor of Christians, killer of Stephen.
Wow.
If I remind you of a Pharisee, before we have read a line of text, it is in your imagination. Saul and the Pharisees sought to crush out any dissenting views. Me? I have offered only to read the Holy Text with you, word for word.
I have taken up the challenge of every evangelist who has ever called to me from radio or television or streetcorner or doorstep. I have opened my KJV and read it, carefully and closely, and what I find there bears on the conversation about evolution.
So, I want to talk about evolution and the creation of the world from a STRICTLY SCRIPTURAL perspective, Sola Scriptura, and you curl up your lip in hatred at me: I remind you of the killer of Christians.
Wow.
Well, you're invited to join the conversation with scottdeus and ThisLittleLightofMine. All we're going to do is read the text, literally, closely, word for word. I didn't write it. I cannot twist what is there. It says what it says, what it says it means, and what it says and means were inspired by God. Do you fear what you might find there?
You should.
Because what you will find there is confusion and contradiction.
And what's more, that confusion and contradiction are not even subtle. They're hanging out there for the world to see. Why would God do that when he inspired the text? Perhaps to hang a great big red flag on it that said: SEE THESE CONTRADICTIONS? Since this is all my word, and it conflicts, obviously you CAN'T discard one part in favor of another. You have to accept both, and they conflict, which means that I am not telling you that story, I am telling you something else. Pay attention to what I am telling you, not the trivial details which I MADE not line up, just so that you COULDN'T obsess about the details.
The errors there are inspired and intentional, specifically to trip up efforts to take the text strictly literally. It CAN'T be taken literally, it contradicts itself. God knew what he was doing when he inspired that text.
And if you take your Sola Scriptura deadly seriously and read what God really inspired there, you will suddenly have it hit you that the muddle and conflict was MEANT to make the story literally unbelievable. God never intended to tell how he created the world with that text. He intended other things by it. So that nobody could make the mistake, someday, that Creationists make, he foresaw the problem of the literalists, and made the text LITERALLY conflict with itself in key ways that aren't subtle. Just so that the text CAN'T support creationism.
THAT is what you will see in the Scripture itself, word-for-word, from the beginning, if you will actually READ it.
In telling you that, I do not sound like Saul.
What I sound like is JESUS.
YOU sound like Saul, twisting on the hook because your TRADITIONS do not stand up to the actual Word of God.
So DO join us in our quest straight to the literal word-for-word text of the King James Version Genesis. It does not support Creationism. It blows it utterly to smithereens.
Start with "the beginning".
Then move to the water.
Then see the naked problem of the birds.
And of the fish and whales and death "entering the world".
And when you stagger out of the ACTUAL TEXT with the stunned realization that God was not telling the story you thought he was, maybe you'll see that God MEANT you to learn many OTHER lessons from it.
Or, more probably, given your Saul comment, you'll pick up a rock to stone the one who brought you the message.
Saul indeed.
Poor guy... unfortunately very difficult to discern.
In some ways, we are lucky Charles ever came along! :)
"When God flooded the world, he opened the floodgates above and the water flooded down from BEYOND THE SUN AND THE STARS (which are IN the firmament, but the water is beyond it)."
Which part of the Bible is that in? Mine says it rained.
Your approach is self-defeating.
What of Genesis 4:1-2?
---
Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.
Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
---
Now, we know what that means but by your standards, they simply went to bed and never touched one another. According to your view, the Lord perhaps played cheerleader in some capacity?
Further, how was Abel conceived? Was he a twin, or simply squirted out a few years later as if by mistake?
Whoops!
The discussion has ended.
"From your link." - ??? - What link? I did not provide any.
"No creationist can accept common descent.....it goes against the biblical account of creation."
You: It also goes against science. Check out Lee Strobel's book "A Case For a Creator". Real scientists with real facts.
Sorry. #1 didn't post a comment and I hit #2 instead.
If you're reading the KJV, yours says that the windows of heaven were opened up and the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Gen. 8:11).
And it says that the firmament divided the world from the surrounding waters, above and below (Gen. 1:6), and that God put the stars and sun and moon IN the firmament of the heaven (Gen. 1:17).
So, there's earth, in a bubble in the water, with water above and below. And there's "the heaven" the firmament, with the stars set IN it.
And there's God opening the windows of heaven to bring down the flood. Sure it fell as rain. Note that God also opens the stopcocks of the firmament BELOW the earth, and the water wells up from the bubble BELOW too: the great springs were broken open.
Now, it's extrinsic knowledge that the Hebrews actually literally saw the world that way, and we've said "Scripture Alone", but that's what Scripture says. It doesn't just say "it rained". It says that God opened windows in "the heaven", which is says is the firmament, into which it says that the stars are placed. It says that earth is in a bubble. And it tells you that God opened the windows of the bubble to flood the earth.
That is the text.
It doesn't JUST say "it rained".
It says where the rain came from.
It says the rain came through the windows of heaven.
It tells you about the firmament of heaven, which is what was opening.
There's a lot in Genesis.
In fact, but just carefully reading it, you can construct all by yourself the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews (and others). And if you read extrinsic sources, you find out that's exactly what they believed.
Can't limit scripture to the rain. Where the rain came from matters. Where the water welled up from matters. What was outside the firmament and came through the windows of heaven matters.
And that water's still out there, somewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.