How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[Guest]

science does not oppose the 7 day creation account of the Bible - but belief in Evolutionism does. Two opposing religious doctrines for origins.

Even the devoutely atheist evolutionist Colin Patterson admitted to the disinctively religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

So let I get this straight. The theory of evolution is not science?

[Michaeneu]

Amen Michael

What do you think of that bravus?

Bravus is like all of us; merely trying to find his way. I hope and pray that he like all of us benefits when God destroys "the vail that is spread over all nations" prior to His Son's return.

Michael

[Guest]

I just like to rib him a little sometimes. It's hard for him to be objective because he teaches that stuff.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

Amen Michael

What do you think of that bravus?

Bravus is like all of us; merely trying to find his way. I hope and pray that he like all of us benefits when God destroys "the vail that is spread over all nations" prior to His Son's return.

Michael

Does it really matter??? We have all of eternity to get it right ... unless that is that you somehow figure this issue is a matter of salvation which I for one do not.

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

Bravus is like all of us; merely trying to find his way. I hope and pray that he like all of us benefits when God destroys "the vail that is spread over all nations" prior to His Son's return.

Michael

Does it really matter??? We have all of eternity to get it right ... unless that is that you somehow figure this issue is a matter of salvation which I for one do not.

I often here this response to substantive issues and that’s OK if one doesn’t mind standing with the scornful, because that is exactly what evolutionist do concerning the 7 day Creation. Then again how can one who is truly saved allow Christ to be called a liar because even he declared that His Father made the first male and female, which rebukes evolution?

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…” Matt. 19:4

Michael

[Guest]

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female Matt. 19:4

Michael

I think he was talking about himself there, was he not?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ....All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1,3

[Michaeneu]

Originally Posted By: Michaeneu

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female Matt. 19:4

Michael

I think he was talking about himself there, was he not?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ....All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1,3

Yea; I would interpret it that the Father and the Son were co-agents in creation.

“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...” Eph. 3:9

Michael

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Does it really matter??? We have all of eternity to get it right ... unless that is that you somehow figure this issue is a matter of salvation which I for one do not.

I often here this response to substantive issues and that’s OK if one doesn’t mind standing with the scornful' date=' because that is exactly what evolutionist do concerning the 7 day Creation. Then again how can one who is truly saved allow Christ to be called a liar because even he declared that His Father made the first male and female, which rebukes evolution?

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…” Matt. 19:4

Michael

[/quote']Perhaps then you can give us a straight answer to the question.

[BobRyan]

Does it really matter??? We have all of eternity to get it right ... unless that is that you somehow figure this issue is a matter of salvation which I for one do not.

Step 1 is to simply look at the OP detail and decide if the 28 FB are changed or unchanged by the doctrines of evolutionism.

Step 2 is to always make sure that wherever you are in the realm of truth - that you are always going forward.

Some people may not agree at all with the 28FB - and that may be their starting point. For them having a few of the 28 FB deleted and others downsized (even if that includes FB #1) might not be a "step back" from where they are today. I always take that as a given.

Christ said that He is the "way the TRUTH and the life" in John 14.

He is the "light of the world" in John 1.

If our walk is always toward truth and light which is Christ -- if it is toward more trust in His word and not less - then we are on the right road regardless of how far back along that line we are starting from.

The purpose of this thread is not to judge someone's salvation - it is to get the obvious points out on the table.

And that is that the 28 FB do in fact change when you try to marry them to the doctrines of evolutionism. I made that case decisively on page one.

Bravus' detailed responses starting to the OP points (starting on page 14 as seen in my view of this thread) showed more agreement with the changes stated on page one -- than any effort to retain the 28FB's listed.

Bravus' own link posted on the origins thread taking the reader to a site where Richard Dawkins was promoting his new book and his latest attack on Christianity - had a quote from Dawkins admitting that when the story of "Adam and Eve is told" even if just to make a moral point - you cannot simply assume that the reader/listener would know from that story "Adam and Eve do not exist" -- you have to actually say "hey they never existed" when you tell the story making moral points about how "God told Adam this" or "And then God said that to Adam" etc.

Thus we have both Christians and even atheist evolutionists agreeing on a glaringly obvious point.

1 - Moses was not known by his readers to be a believer in evolutionism.

2 - Moses never makes his case about Adam and Eve in the form "and Adam and Eve did not actually exist.

Which leads us to to "notice" that the same is true in Romans 5 and 1Tim 2 when Paul references those Adam and Eve details to make moral arguments as well as the fact that in Ex 20:8-11 Moses is arguing a case in LAW using that Adam and Eve story!!

That speaks volumes for the objective unbiased reader. And I think it is helpful to have that information out on the table.

Which was the point of the thread - to look at the damage done to the 28FB when you try to marry them to the doctrines of evolutionism. Nothing more.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Edit: deleted unfair comments about Bill Cobern

You've claimed the evidence is flawed, Twilight, but let me turn the burden of proof around.

*You* tell *me* what piece of evidence would cause you to believe in evolution.

[Bravus]

Or, more precisely, to believe *that* evolution explains some of the variation in living things we see around us. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, and 'believing in' is not the appropriate response to those.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Does it really matter??? We have all of eternity to get it right ... unless that is that you somehow figure this issue is a matter of salvation which I for one do not.

I often here this response to substantive issues and that’s OK if one doesn’t mind standing with the scornful' date=' because that is exactly what evolutionist do concerning the 7 day Creation. Then again how can one who is truly saved allow Christ to be called a liar because even he declared that His Father made the first male and female, which rebukes evolution?

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…” Matt. 19:4

Michael

[/quote']

Indeed. :-)

I see no mention of amoeba's there at all.

[Bravus]

To take Michenau's point about metaphysics more seriously, as it deserves...

It is true that evolutionary theory starts from the perspective of no divine intervention. Miracles are not susceptible to science. But it is not true to say that everything comes from that.

Here's an example: the 'creation science' people develop their own scientific explanations for the evidence around us. If your statement (or perhaps implication) that it is all metaphysics, and the way the evidence is interpreted depends *entirely* on the belief structure, then these explanations ought to be equally elegant, explanatory, well-structured and so on as the evolution-based explanations. Yet they really are not (you may have to accept my assertion on that until you have spent the time looking at the evidence - and possibly studying science). Rather, they are patchy, piecemeal and involve increasing layers of ad hoc assumptions. Creation scientists use superseded data and old references, and do not submit their work to peer review - even that of their peers in their own discipline.

Creation science *cannot* explain the world we live in. It is this that has forced me to the point of saying that either the world is older, or else God intentionally made it look that way. Without studying science - not evolutionary science, just good old straight up chemistry, physics and scientific method - it's possible to ignore the evidence, but for me it is not.

[Twilight]

I actually know Bill Cobern - even interviewed for a job working alongside him at Western Michigan University in science education (I was offered that job but ended up accepting one in Canada). He's a good person and a good science educator, but he's a devout Christian and creationist and he falls into the same pattern as all of you: simple binary thinking and false dichotomies.

You've claimed the evidence is flawed, Twilight, but let me turn the burden of proof around.

*You* tell *me* what piece of evidence would cause you to believe in evolution.

Some real evidence?

[Twilight]

Or, more precisely, to believe *that* evolution explains some of the variation in living things we see around us. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, and 'believing in' is not the appropriate response to those.

Without evidence, the first "freudian" slip, would be the correct one, would it not. :-)

Mark

[Bravus]

Nope, saying 'some real evidence' does not cut it.

I know you well enough to know the answer, but I was hoping you would be honest enough to provide it. But here it is:

"There is no piece of evidence that would convince me that evolution explains any of the variation we see in living things we see around us."

Correct?

[Twilight]

To take Michenau's point about metaphysics more seriously, as it deserves...

It is true that evolutionary theory starts from the perspective of no divine intervention. Miracles are not susceptible to science. But it is not true to say that everything comes from that.

Here's an example: the 'creation science' people develop their own scientific explanations for the evidence around us. If your statement (or perhaps implication) that it is all metaphysics, and the way the evidence is interpreted depends *entirely* on the belief structure, then these explanations ought to be equally elegant, explanatory, well-structured and so on as the evolution-based explanations. Yet they really are not (you may have to accept my assertion on that until you have spent the time looking at the evidence - and possibly studying science). Rather, they are patchy, piecemeal and involve increasing layers of ad hoc assumptions. Creation scientists use superseded data and old references, and do not submit their work to peer review - even that of their peers in their own discipline.

Creation science *cannot* explain the world we live in. It is this that has forced me to the point of saying that either the world is older, or else God intentionally made it look that way. Without studying science - not evolutionary science, just good old straight up chemistry, physics and scientific method - it's possible to ignore the evidence, but for me it is not.

There are plenty of people that are acredited scientists that say exactly the opposite of your position here.

The whole post seems to be a recourse to "intellectual higher ground".

Creation science does not need to explain the world we live in, it recognises that the Creator has created then it seeks to understand it.

Evolutionary theory tries to explicitly explain how the world got here without the "Creator".

How it got here by purely material means.

So Evolutionists want to explain.

Creationists want to understand.

Two completely different mindsets.

One says: "I can figure this out without any need of God."

One says: "Please can you help me understand what you have done, in your time and according to your will."

One is from a position of proud arrogant intellectualism (a generalisation of course).

One is from a position of humility (again a generalisation).

Mark

[Twilight]

Nope, saying 'some real evidence' does not cut it.

I know you well enough to know the answer, but I was hoping you would be honest enough to provide it. But here it is:

"There is no piece of evidence that would convince me that evolution explains any of the variation we see in living things we see around us."

Correct?

I have examined all the arguments I can for evolutionary theory Bravus.

They are all just a pile of chaff.

I used to be an evolutionist, was force fed it by society.

I have rejected it because it is irrational and has no evidence to support it.

The only evidence presented always falls apart on close examination.

Let me point to one of the biggest source of doubts in my mind about evolutionary theory?

In fact, no, it is too important, I will start another thread...

Mark

[Michaeneu]

To take Michenau's point about metaphysics more seriously, as it deserves...

It is true that evolutionary theory starts from the perspective of no divine intervention. Miracles are not susceptible to science. But it is not true to say that everything comes from that.

Here's an example: the 'creation science' people develop their own scientific explanations for the evidence around us. If your statement (or perhaps implication) that it is all metaphysics, and the way the evidence is interpreted depends *entirely* on the belief structure, then these explanations ought to be equally elegant, explanatory, well-structured and so on as the evolution-based explanations. Yet they really are not (you may have to accept my assertion on that until you have spent the time looking at the evidence - and possibly studying science). Rather, they are patchy, piecemeal and involve increasing layers of ad hoc assumptions. Creation scientists use superseded data and old references, and do not submit their work to peer review - even that of their peers in their own discipline.

Creation science *cannot* explain the world we live in. It is this that has forced me to the point of saying that either the world is older, or else God intentionally made it look that way. Without studying science - not evolutionary science, just good old straight up chemistry, physics and scientific method - it's possible to ignore the evidence, but for me it is not.

The epistemology and ontology of the evolutionist/Empiricists is a philosophy—pure and simple—and that’s what makes their “theory” metaphysics. They then use science to attempt to support that theory. Of course anyone with preconceived philosophies is only going to look at the evidence the way they want. And as I stated and supported with documentation, it has been some time that our contemporary education has been conditioning or manipulating minds so as to accumulate and interpreted a great amount of so-called evidence to supports their theory.

And it is also true that for some time, because of the meek nature of Christians, they have not been compelled to contend against this war or even grasp that it is a war for the minds of their children. Creation science is relatively new on the scene, that can’t be denied. But that is slowly changing and there is a grass roots movement to win back the minds of the children through science itself that disproves the assertions of evolution. Creation science is well on its way to explain the world we live in, but Bravus is correct that the atheist’s evolutionists have entrenched themselves and have “monopolized” almost all avenues of education today (that alone is revealing) and of course this explains the patchy work and lack of peer review in Creation science; that is changing.

Let me comment briefly on one aspect of the so-called evidence of the evolutionists. If evolution were true the fossil evidence should reveal copious examples of dead-end attempts in nature between one kind to another, but this evidence is lacking. The fossils records actually support the emergence of well-designed and functional life at first appearance. The occasional or rare extinct aberration that appears in the fossils which have similar structures between kinds rather supports creation because they should have similarities—being that they were created by the same God.

Then there is the evidence of Stasis…, which is the subject of another post.

Michael

[Bravus]

If creation science would have that humility you describe, Twilight, they would limit their efforts to exploring the world and looking at the amazing ways in which it shows the work of the Creator. But they don't - the vast majority of their work is attacks on small aspects of evolutionary theory. Your description of what they do and what they are about is inaccurate.

[Bravus]

Your second-last para is just inaccurate, Michael: there are *plenty* of 'evolutionary dead-end' species, in the sense that they don't have modern descendants.

[Michaeneu]

If creation science would have that humility you describe, Twilight, they would limit their efforts to exploring the world and looking at the amazing ways in which it shows the work of the Creator. But they don't - the vast majority of their work is attacks on small aspects of evolutionary theory. Your description of what they do and what they are about is inaccurate.

I’m not twilight. The evidence from one of your own, William W. Cobern, shows clearly that the vast majority of the established monopolies of Empiricists clearly are the ones with unclean motives. Moreover, the epistemology and ontology of the evolutionist/Empiricists is a philosophy—pure and simple—and that’s what makes their “theory” metaphysics. That is not science at all but merely a religion itself. In truth they merely attempt to manipulate minds by supporting their religion with science and by calling their religion SCIENCE.

Michael

[Michaeneu]

Your second-last para is just inaccurate, Michael: there are *plenty* of 'evolutionary dead-end' species, in the sense that they don't have modern descendants.

You completely missed the point. The modern descendents should have generated millions upon millions of dead-end, unfunctional, disfigured fossils but there is a marked absence of such evidence.

Michael

[Bravus]

No, of course not. How does something disfunctional get fossilized at all? It is aborted naturally early in the pregnancy, or stillborn, and never lives, never breeds. Evolution *does not* predict anything of the sort. Every creature in the fossil record needs to have been healthy enough to live and breed and survive - remember, we have fossils of only a tiny fraction of all the *species* that ever lived, let alone all the individuals.

If this is the level of evidence you're working with, your conclusions are unsurprising. Not meant to be rude, condescending or anything else, but I'm just shocked: you are discounting a theory that has never existed.

[Michaeneu]

No, of course not. How does something disfunctional get fossilized at all? It is aborted naturally early in the pregnancy, or stillborn, and never lives, never breeds. Evolution *does not* predict anything of the sort. Every creature in the fossil record needs to have been healthy enough to live and breed and survive - remember, we have fossils of only a tiny fraction of all the *species* that ever lived, let alone all the individuals.

If this is the level of evidence you're working with, your conclusions are unsurprising. Not meant to be rude, condescending or anything else, but I'm just shocked: you are discounting a theory that has never existed.

Thank you, for you are now supporting Stasis, the stability of the genetic DNA and its resistance to mutation. If mutations are healthy enough to breed it is pricelessly because they DO NOT grossly derivate from their kind. And this is precisely the evidence of contemporary microevolution, which is testable in the lab. Macroevolution knows no such support, period! (And this still does not address that the assertions of evolution necessitate that there had to be millions of intermediary links between kinds in the fossils that didn’t ultimately survive, which is lacking.)

Michael