Why I believe in Creation not Evolution.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Ah, but as I've noted, creationists believe, as you do, that if evolution can be proven false, creationism must be true.

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

Neither is physics, computer science, and the internal combustion engine. Do they need to be?

As though Shiloh hadn’t already addressed that by pointing out that only evolution among all of those things is predicated on proving there is no necessity for God.

Alternatively, it is derived froma belief that God cannot be deceptive.

So in Don’s estimation, it would not be deceptive of God to tell us He did something some way, like for example created each creature after its kind, when in fact He did the exact opposite of just that.

However it would be deceptive to have created a world in which people can chip pieces of rocks away, run tests on them to identify the volume of parent to daughter rations of certain isotopes, make unwarranted and demonstrably false assumptions that the samples come from closed systems, run numerous forms of analysis to augment the estimations the of the parent to daughter ratios based on assumptions of historic atmospheric factors and calculate the estimated half life of the isotopes based on these regressions, reconcile the findings with a preset assumption by dismissing any ‘outlying’ numbers that don’t come close to what was expected and any slightly little trace of daughter element will read as great lengths of time, the details of which can be easily reconciled to expectations with the explanations of ‘contamination’ if they’re too high, ‘leeching’ if they’re too low, and a lack of instrument sensitivity if anything else is desired to facilitate an interpretation of such samples as being old... that would be a clear example of a deceptive creator if in fact man could err in his estimations with such a compounding set of demonstrably unwarrented assumptions.

And here I thought that being deceptive would be to say one thing and mean another like if I told my neighbour that my dog chewed holes into my best pair of socks so I threw them out, but Don is teaching me that it would be far more deceptive, for example, to have thrown those socks away, because it’s always possible that my neighbour would dig them out of the garbage and despite the account I gave him of the dog-chewing incident, assume that the sock had holes because I had run a marathon in my sock feet – that would prove me a liar, apparently.

Given that every field of science that could deal with the origin of man is in agreement with evolution and not creation,

Right... and all that proof is just on the other side of the curtain we’re not allowed to look behind. Handy.

I'm thinking God really does not have a desire to be deceptive, therefore, belief in evolution is fine with him.

“Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.... Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all” (Job 38:1-18).

An unusual statement since I have said over and over that I believe the bible is true an inerrant.

Except when I pointed out that the Bible was inerrant and he back peddled with a ‘whoa, whoa, whoa... let’s not get carried away here’.

Probably has somethingto do with me not believing how you want me to believe that has you so bothered.

What’s he doing here, if all he wants to talk about is how his personal beliefs are bothering others? He jumped into threads, made trite and off topic comments about his beliefs, and cries every time someone presents him with challenges to those beliefs as though we were tracking him down.

What possible, meaningful contribution is he hoping to make, since he won’t actually address the challenges put to him?

[Guest shiloh357]

As you are aware, I've said that "creation science" isn't science. My problem is not really with creationists. Its when they try to start with their faith in creation, which is fine, then jump to using science to prove that position, usually by trying to disprove evolution.

If God is real, AND if God created the universe, it stands to reason that science should affirm God as Creator. That is where the evidence should lead.

You have no problem with someone "believing" that is Creator; it's when they start saying that the scientific evidence supports their faith that you have a problem. As long as believing in God as Creator remains a myth all in their head, you are fine with it. Just don't expect science to support that goofy biblical stuff.

The REAL problem is when affirm the Scriptures that God is the Creator, but claim that the "evidence" leads us to the opposite conclusion, yet hold that the Scriptures and the conclusion that squarely contradicts it will one day be reconciled. That is an irrational position.

The problem is that "creation science" is pseudoscience, or junk science to be exact.

That is an unsubstantiated claim. That is nothing but a bigoted statement.

Reinterpreting someone else's research, with no credible expertise to do so, is commentary, not science. Not understanding something is not a valid approach for rejecting it, which seems to be the general strategy of creationists.

So, according to you, if someone thinks science actually supports Scripture, they don't understand science. As I stated before, you are really nothing but a bigot. You really do make a better atheist.

We've already established that you don't know what a citation is.

How is that? Just becasue you cited a journal that I could not access because I didn't belong to the club you have to pay premium subscription to access their journals?? Your purposely cited a journal you knew I had no access to and then pretend you have scored a victory in the process.

But to the point, you havn't named them that I can recall, but you have told me repeatedly that you have talked to them, so you are misinterpreting your information from someplace.

I have named several, including Gould, Hawkings, Dawkins and others and I have spoken with local collegiate biology professors who are evolutionists in order to make sure that I have the theory correctly framed.

Why don't you tell your "classic evolutionists" that you don''t believe in natural selection and get back to me about how well that goes over.

They already know my position and they know I am a Christian and they think it is crazy not to believe in natural selection. But they appreciated the respect I demonstrate in that I at least sought to understand the theory correctly before criticizinig it. I have been told more than once that it is frustrating to deal with Christians who do not seek to understand Evolutionists' claims before attempting to refute them. So I am on good terms with them, even if we disagree. At least they are more honest about Evolution than you are.

[Guest shiloh357]

There's your problem righ there. I can copy a paste a bunch of quotes from creationists here about relying on ones own intellect/knowledge etc and how bad it is. The scriptural references have been posted many times. I'm not surprised you think they don't apply to you.

Yes, but you would take those quotes out of their natural context. The Bible is also replete with exhortations that we no relay on our own understanding and our own carnal reasoning. Rather we are to acknowledge God in all our ways. The Bible teaches that there is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to destruction and ruin.

My observations are not an attempt to rely on my own intellect. Rather I am obeying the Scriptures which tell us to observe God's glory in all that He has made. We can look at the world around us and see HIM. He is revealed in the way He has deisgned the earth not only in its consistent uniformed order, but even in the animal world and how the littlest creatures demonstrate amazing ingenity and rescourcefulness in how they arrange and construct their communities, they way they care for and protect their young.

Unfortunately, you prefer to ignore the evidence that is readily apparent and seek to find ways to ignore and/or diminish the value of simple observation. God did not make it hard to see Him.

Ah, but as I've noted, creationists believe, as you do, that if evolution can be proven false, creationism must be true.

Stop trying project what other creationists say on to me. Either God is the Creator or His isn't. If God is the creator, then the naturalistic worldview is false. The evidence speaks to a loving, all-knowing, omnipresent Creator. I cannot prove "God." But I do believe the evidence leads in His direction.

shiloh357, on 24 April 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

Evolution is not in the Bible because it is not true, and you will NEVER find a way to reconcile your godless theory and make it biblical.

Neither is physics, computer science, and the internal combustion engine. Do they need to be?

So you finally admit that Evolution is not in the Bible. Thanks.

Furthermore, physics is not a theory is a physical science; Evolution is a theory. The two cannot be compared. Engines and Computers did not exist in Bible times so that is not a cogent argument.

Alternatively, it is derived froma belief that God cannot be deceptive.

Creationism does not make God deceptive.

Given that every field of science that could deal with the origin of man is in agreement with evolution and not creation, I'm thinking God really does not have a desire to be deceptive, therefore, belief in evolution is fine with him.

You don't know God at all. You prefer the god of evolution. The god of evolution has no problem with it. The God of the Bible made man in His image from the dust of the earth. Only an unbeliever could make the argument that holding to the biblical account as written makes God deceptive.

An unusual statement since I have said over and over that I believe the bible is true an inerrant.

Sorry, but that impotent testimony does not square with the pro-evolutionary drivel that you have posted. You have demonstrated an aversion to taking the Bible literaally (which is what one must do in order to claim the Bible is inerrant).

Probably has somethingto do with me not believing how you want me to believe that has you so bothered.

Nope, it just has to do with the glaring internal inconsistencies of your postion.

[LLC]

Viole, I never thought evolution and belief in a deity are completely incompatible. After all, theories such as evolution draw upon modern science - how were people back 2000 years ago to understand what we now know today to be true? It was impossible given their technological progress. I think as more scientific discoveries are made, and we learn more and more about the universe we inhabit, we must also change our interpretation of the bible and such texts. I always believed that religion was the answer to 'why' and not 'how'.

Edited April 27, 2011 by LLC

[Guest shiloh357]

Viole, I never thought evolution and belief in a deity are completely incompatible.

Then you clearly have not thought it out very well.

After all, theories such as evolution draw upon modern science - how were people back 2000 years ago to understand what we now know today to be true?

Evolution is not known to be true. Furthermore, Evolution is not the product of modern science. The theory of Evolution had its beginnings in a time when science was very crude and a single cell was thought to be nothing but a gelatinous blob. The science of Darwin's day was extremely crude by our standards, and much of the conventional wisidom of that time period has been discarded today. Evolution is the remnant of crude science and the only reason it has still held on is that it provides atheists an alternative to the creation account in Genesis.

It was impossible given their technological progress.

The theory of Evolution is older than the automobile. The technology that existed in Darwin's day was hardly what we would call advanced.

I think as more scientific discoveries are made, and we learn more and more about the universe we inhabit, we must also change our interpretation of the bible and such texts.

The problem is that interpretations don't change. "Interpretation" is not subjective. Interpretation is objective and is based on the intent of the author, not the whims of the reader. There is only ONE interpretation of any text, and that interpretation is the object the author has in view. The reader does not have the right to decide what a text means. It is the duty of the reader to determine what the author was trying to say and how the author wants to be understood. That is what interpretations mean.

It is interesting that Evolutionists keep trying to argue that science does not speak to God, His existence, spirituality, etc. Yet, they seek to encourage Christians to alter their view of the Bible to accomodate science. They want Christians to leave God out of the science, but they demand that science influences how Christians view God and how Christians interpret the Bible. In essence, it is an attempt to usurp God's authority and put science in His place.

I always believed that religion was the answer to 'why' and not 'how'.

God is not a religion.

[LuftWaffle]

It is interesting that Evolutionists keep trying to argue that science does not speak to God, His existence, spirituality, etc. Yet, they seek to encourage Christians to alter their view of the Bible to accomodate science. They want Christians to leave God out of the science, but they demand that science influences how Christians view God and how Christians interpret the Bible. In essence, it is an attempt to usurp God's authority and put science in His place.

Well said!

[Guest shiloh357]

I am always skeptical of people who use a certain methodology to look for truth but, in their heart, when

they leave the lab, they believe that the rules they follow could be, in principle, be broken at any time.

It is just a question of intellectual honesty. If you are a real evolutionist, you have to conclude that our species

is not any special (ok, we are cleverer, sort of, but bacteria are more successfull, they can leave without us,

but we cannot leave without them). We will probably go extinct and when we die, that's it. If you work

as if there was no God, but you believe that you will go to Heaven then yours is just wishful thinking.

Viole,

Your honesty as an Evolutionist is quite refreshing. While you and I may disagree over worldviews, I appreciate and affirm your honesty and logical consistency.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I agree thanks for that Viole. I am shutting this one down to, as it has gone the direction of all evolution threads, way off my original topic. Its time for this one to rest.