How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: SDA 28FB Belief 6

6. Creation:

God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ``very good,'' declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

Evolutionism denies every single point of doctrine 6 for it says;

(a)1. God is not the Creator of all things. At best he created the big bang and then let everything else evolve and create itself over billions and billions of years. Thus the "intelligence" of the Creator cannot be seen in a single thing in nature today unless it is done "by faith alone" believing in spite of seeing nothing.

(b)2. Scripture does NOT give an authentic (historically accurate) account of anything such as the creation of all life on earth in a literal 7 day week. It is myth, poetry and storytelling.

©3. God did not rest on the 7th day of the first week of Creation -- because there was no "week of creation" with a literal day in it such that God could rest in a completed work - with mankind already in Eden on day 7. Simply "no such thing" according to evolutionism.

(d)4. Thus God could NOT have "established the Sabbath on day 7". No not on "Day 7" nor on the 7 Millionth year nor even the 700 Millionth year!

(e)5. Since the Christian God is not a violent grunting animal-eating cave-dwelling hominid - the first humans were not in the image of God nor did they even have a language complex enough to understand a 7 day creation week concept much less the notion of "keeping the 7th day holy" or seeing God as the ONE true God creator of all life..

(f)6. The first hominids were of such basic mind that there is no way they could have been given "charge" of the earth to "care for it". They were lucky to even "survive" as day by day they bashed in their ration of monkey brains in their caves.

(g)7. Evolutionism says that by the time mankind came along - the world was ruled by the law of tooth and claw. It was a ruthless and bloody place where "creation" was achieved by virtue of starvation and predation. It was not "good" at all - and humans today should not seek to return to such a bloody death-overall origin.

[skyblue888]

I think the real problem here is that man in all his pride needs physical evidence. Man doesn't want to have faith in something because he just might be labeled as believing in fairy tales.(I was in this boat before) Though I could be wrong, just my personal thoughts.

God proves Himself to all men, if they would just ask Him.

"Oh taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trust in Him"(Psalm 34:8)

"The most difficult and humiliating lesson that man has to learn is his own inefficiency in depending upon human wisdom, and the sure failure of his own efforts to read nature correctly. Sin has obscured his vision, and of himself he cannot interpret nature without placing it above God. He cannot discern in it God, or Jesus Christ, whom He has sent." E.G. White, Selected Messages, Vol.1, p.292.

Sin has obscured his vision....

That says it all, does it not?

But to those whose eyes have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, nature is again illuminated.

"The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power." Education, p.134.

Whether it is Ellen White who said those words or not is irrelevant. She truly spoke the truth. Salvation is the science of sciences. If we fail to recognize the unseen, mighty Intelligence that is at work in all created things, we will not be able to appreciate the other sciences. But if we can recognize that nature in her work testifies of the intelligent presence and active Agency of a Being who moves in all things according to His will, bearing the curse wherever it is found, we will have eternity to study all the other sciences.

sky

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I recently saw a BBC documentary, showing Ernst Haekel's false "fetus" pictures.

When was it made?

2007 - 2008

Desperation for evidence?

Mark :-)

Haekel's fraud was put forward in the late 1800's it continued as a mainstay of evolution's fraudulent history for 50 years. The interesting thing about the frauds in evolution's history is that many of them are put over on the public for decade after decade before truth comes out.

And in every case the one promoting the fraud knows they are doing it.

For example when Haekel was put on trial for his misdeeds his defense was that he would be inclined to be mortified by his antics of simply manufacturing evidence/display if it were not for the fact that "everybody is doing it"!! How telling!

Interesting that the fraudulent horse series presented by Simpson in the 50's has the same lack-luster history of contrived sequencing.

in Christ,

Bob

I wonder if all the "false evidence" was removed, what would be left to present to an indoctrinated public in the way of evidence to support the failing theory of evolution?

[BobRyan]

You want focus - we got focus!!

7. Nature of Man:

Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)

[BobRyan]

8. Great Controversy:

All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

[BobRyan]

20. Sabbath:

The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

[BobRyan]

I guess at least it's no longer possible to claim that 'the silence is deafening'.

Indeed you have listed your responses to the points raisd in summary if not in detail at times - I admit to that point.

-- we have agreement there.

Now let the readers review the posts and draw the appropriate conclusion based on the facts highlighted.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

OK the facts are in. You won Bob. Sorry Bravus.

[Bravus]

Yay, he's convinced the convinced!! The choir loved the sermon.

[phkrause]

Good points Lutz.

pk

[Guest]

Yay, he's convinced the convinced!! The choir loved the sermon.

Yes we did. Be back next week for more.

[olger]

Amen, brother !!

Y'know the carpet could use a change...

g

[Twilight]

delusion |diˈloō zh ən|

noun

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument

...the elixir of those who would hide from their own mind...

'we won you lose'..a childish phrase more appropriate to children's games.

I have yet to see one "credibile" piece of evidence or proof for Evolution.

Not "one".

Now that could be my inherent blindness, but then I am a converted ex-evolutionist...

Or it could be there is no evidence.

It is tiring to hear "masses of evidence", "blind to science" type statements, but no "evidence" to back it up.

Mark :-)

[Bravus]

What would count as evidence, for you.

How are antibiotic-resistant bacteria not evidence, for example?

I'm not trying to be provocative or confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. Can you propose a test (other than going to the zoo one morning and finding a human in the monkey cage ) that would count as evidence for you?

[olger]

I would like to see a half-man half-monkey amalgamation, instead of the weak excuses of the naturalist crowd. Fair enough?

g

[BobRyan]

What would count as evidence, for you.

How are antibiotic-resistant bacteria not evidence, for example?

I'm not trying to be provocative or confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. Can you propose a test (other than going to the zoo one morning and finding a human in the monkey cage ) that would count as evidence for you?

The issue is amoeba-to-man evolutionism where the genome is speculated to contain "sooo much plasticity" that new coding genes -- and yes even entirely new chromosomes are added to the Amoeba genome over time to eventually produce a man. (using the magic word "billions" enough times of course).

You proposal is that we swallow that massive fiction by noticing that bacterial genome as it is today allows for adaptations against some chemicals, some proteins that would normally kill it.

What some readers do not know is that your example above still does NOT proposed a "new chromosome" nor even a "single new coding gene" on the host DNA in that story.

So in essence your example above is - "why do you not accept an example of NO CHANGE in host genome as in the case of bacterial resistence to a drug as proof of VAST changes to genome over time??"

So in that case I have to ask you in return -- why in the world would we even want to leap off into such a wildly disconnected argument as "proof" of anything at all - except proof of the resilience of the existing UNCHANGED genome of that bacteria!

Notice that when Dawkins is confronted with this same evolution-101 problem of showing ACTUAL change in genome -- his reponse is simply 11 seconds of of flummoxed silence.

The flabbergasting part of that is how often no-proof is so often accepted by evolutionists as hopeful-imaginative indeed thought-experiement proof of one of their key doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Quote:

I would like to see a half-man half-monkey amalgamation, instead of the weak excuses of the naturalist crowd. Fair enough?

There could be no such thing as a half-man/half-monkey: every creature is just itself.

There are definitely fossils of creatures that share some features with modern humans and some with apes.

Or do you want to see a living one now? That's not going to happen - the events that led to the rise of homo sapiens are never going to occur again in exactly the same way.

You may well see modifications of existing ape species such as the chimpanzee to use more tools and even language, for example... but you won't be around for the requisite thousands of years.

But if you're happy with a fossil, there are heaps of examples:

[BobRyan]

Kinda reminds me of Simpsons contrived horse series.

[Bravus]

OK, Bob, you're not satisfied with antibiotic resistance (though the question was actually for Mark/Twilight). But I'll ask you the question as well. What is the experiment that would satisfy you? If there is none, or if what you request is not something evolution predicts, then you are out of the realm of science entirely. There must be an experiment.

[BobRyan]

OK the facts are in. You won Bob. Sorry Bravus.

Thank you Richard!

Actually it was not that difficult given the "detail" that Bravus kept agreeing with the salient point of the argument in almost his every post -- only pointing that in "addition to that point" there are "some other flavors of evolutionists that are ... atheist or in one case I.D accepting Evolutionists" etc.

His frank admission that Adam and Eve did not exist in ALL of those flavors - was helpful.

His frank admission that the 5 mass extinctions and all the bloody jungle law of tooth and claw "natural selection" has to be recast as "idyllic origins" by contrast to the Bible statements on the Garden of Eden was helpful.

His frank admission that the fall of man was left in the hands of the first hominid-human to have intelligent independant thought was a helpful contrast to the Adam and Eve version.

And of course Bravus is the one that first provided that link to Dawkins where Dawkins claims that it is less than reasonable to suppose that a story about Adam and Eve that makes a moral point should demand that the reader conclude 'yes but Adam and Eve did not exist" EVEN if that story is being told by an evolutionist PREACHER!!

Basically I believe Bravus helped me carry as much of that argument as possible from his perpsective so some of the credit for that victory rightfully belongs to him as well.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Dizzy yet?

[BobRyan]

OK, Bob, you're not satisfied with antibiotic resistance (though the question was actually for Mark/Twilight). But I'll ask you the question as well. What is the experiment that would satisfy you? If there is none, or if what you request is not something evolution predicts, then you are out of the realm of science entirely. There must be an experiment.

Indeed I can think of a few.

1. Abiogenesis shown to actually work in nature!

2. Genomes in nature seen to acquire new working chromosome leading up the chain from amoeba-to-man.

3. New coding Genes added to existing chromosomes "in nature" that would lead up the chain from amoeba to man.

Those 3 key experiments would be the FIRST evidence we ever would have seen that the story of evolutionism was ever even POSSIBLe.

In real life - looking at a murder scene for example - you can show 2 or 3 POSSIBLE scenarios for how the murder may have taken place.

So far evolutionism has not shown even ONE!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Dizzy yet?

Success is thrilling I have to admit!

[Bravus]

1. Abiogenesis is very hard and extremely rare: as far as we know it has happened exactly once in 4.5 billion years. The probability of observing it happen again is vanishingly small... particularly given that the atmosphere of the earth is utterly changed. Evolution does not predict this, and in fact very strongly predicts that it *won't* be observed, so the fact that it is, in fact, not observed, can't be used as a refutation of evolution.

2 and 3 are essentially the same demand: new genetic material introduced into the genome - and on the DNA, not in plasmids. Got it, and will seek an example that has been observed in nature, other than in bacteria. There are plenty. It makes no sense to ask for 'amoeba to man' because that is billions of experiments, not one. The best you'll get is a new coding gene.

[Bravus]

Try these fruitflies (drosophila): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/10/11/1655.full (and humans)