Jump to content
IGNORED

Evolution


Fez

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

As to the issue of if the Bible teaches evolution, it does not in my opinion.
It certainly doesn't.

Nice quote mining. You seem to enjoy doing that....

I addressed the Augustinian issue in Post 122 and you did not deign to respond again. I thought the issue was closed but apparently you like grasping at straws. Please read post 122 and respond to it or concede the Augustinian issue.

I think it has been addressed - how do you handle the truth that Augustine determined the Earth was created in 5600 BC? Does that leave enough time for your version of evolutionism?

If I may quote my response directly from Post 122 which you have NOT responded to:

LOL - you still miss the point my friend. Augustine believed the Earth was created about 5600 BC - much too young to fit your version of Darwinism and he based his date squarely on the Bible. Any way you wish to spin your tale - Augustine was not on your side (you simply thought he was) and in his mature view he said "farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible". Maybe your should take his advice and turn back to God's word --oops you can't do that and remain true to your creation myth based on the naturalism of evolutionism. :mgcheerful:

Too young to fit into Darwinian evolution to be sure but as I mentioned, this is due to Augustine's lack of scientific data. As Augustine clearly states in The Literal Meaning of Genesis through the various quotes I have provided, the literal interpretation of Genesis as taken by fundamentalists today makes no sense to him. As he states some passages make no sense taken literally:

But before the appearance of the sun, in what sort of cycle could three days and nights have passed in succession? Even if there existed the light which was first created, and even if we assume that it was a corporeal light, it is difficult to discover any solution to propose for this problem. Perhaps one might say that God gave the name “darkness” to the mass of earth and water which were still not separated one from the other (a thing which is said to have happened on the third day), in view of the dense bodily mass of the earth and water, which light could not have penetrated, or in view of the dark shade of the huge bulk. Now there must be such a shade on one side of a body if there is light on the other. Where part of a body cannot be reached by light, because the mass of the body obstructs it, in that part there is shade; for a place deprived of light which would illuminate it if it were not for a body that obstructs the light, fulfills exactly the definition of shade. If this shade, because of the size of the massive body, is large enough to cover a space of the earth equal to that covered by daylight on the other side, it is then called “night.” Not all darkness is night. There is darkness also in large caves in which light cannot penetrate the inner recesses because of the solid mass that obstructs it. In such places there is no light, and all the area is unlighted, but we do not call this darkness “night.” This word we reserve for the darkness that comes to that part of the earth from which day has departed. Similarly, not all light is called “day”; there is the light of the moon, of the stars, of lamps, of lightning, and of all such objects that shine. But that light is called “day” which precedes the night and withdraws when night comes on...Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Augustine uses some pretty harsh words at the end of this statement so either he enjoys contradicting himself in the same book or your claims and those of Zuiddam are far fetched and rely merely on Augustine's lack of scientific data rather than his theological position.

His date being based squarely on the bible? As from what I've heard from my Young Earth Creationist friends, the earth should only be about 6000 years old if you account for the ages of the people in the Bible. Could be wrong of course. I haven't looked into the YEC community for a bit so they could have revised it.

As noted earlier - per Benno Zuiddam, the answer is to be found in Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram (On the necessity of taking Genesis literally).

Interesting... seeing as I've read at least most of The Literal Meaning of Genesis by Augustine. Perhaps a chapter or section I could look into or the paper by Zuiddam so I could offer some remarks?

Here were my comments that were not addressed. Respond to them please. Thanks!

In regards to an annoying thing in your post: Evolution does not postulate butterflies became human.

Doesn't the Darwinian myth claim that humans and butterflies have a common ancestor if you go back into deep time far enough? Does Darwinism say chimps and humans share a common ancestor? Can you support that notion via real science without simply waiving you hands in the air and saying it happened because Darwinists say it happened (circular reasoning at its best)?

Butterflies and humans most likely share a common ancestor according to Darwinian evolution. However, this does not mean that humans are descendents of butterflies as you said in your original post. This ignorance of the actually process really surprised me and of course annoys me.

As to the evidence, we could go on talking about it for days so to save a bit of time, I am going to post links. I know that you will probably ignore them or claim that you don't have enough time to read them (which to me seems a bit odd considering the amount of time you spend posting on the forum) but in my naivity and hope for humanity I would request most politely that you read these resources and come back to me with thoughts on each of the article and perhaps any scientific flaws you find in their methods:

http://anthro.paloma...ve/evolve_3.htm

http://evolution.ber.../0_0_0/lines_01

http://evolution.ber...ibrary/home.php

http://www.nature.co...olutiongems.pdf

As a matter of interest waldoz are you a young earth creationist or a old earth creationist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.18
  • Content Count:  7,626
  • Content Per Day:  1.82
  • Reputation:   1,559
  • Days Won:  44
  • Joined:  10/03/2012
  • Status:  Offline

I have noticed several videos posting on this thread. They have been removed. Please submit all video's through the Videos forums. A Servant from the WCF Moderation Team will need to watch and review any video submitted before the possibility of it being approved.

Please understand that we in the WCF ministry are volunteers. Understanding this will also bring an understanding that if you start a thread that has a long running video, it may take days for someone to have enough time to dedicate to watching the video in full, which would mean that it may take days before your video is either accepted or rejected.

This goes in keeping with the WCF ToS (Terms of Service)

Worthy Boards are non-denominational Christian forums where we discuss a host of worthy topics such as Bible prophecy, theology and the latest news. Our desire is to provide a Christian-friendly, family oriented atmosphere online.

You may not post any material that is disrespectful of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

The use of profanity will not be tolerated. This includes sexually explicit, vulgar, or other profane language or usernames as well as any any signs or symbols that suggests such. Do not post sexually explicit, vulgar or offensive website addresses (URL's) to the forum. (Eph. 4: 29)

This is a privately funded message board, we reserve the right to edit or remove any postings that we feel are detrimental to the fellowship on this board, or detrimental to the witness of the board, as we see fit. It is not possible to read every post. If you see a board violation, please report it using the “Report Post” button.

Please proceed with the discussion.

God bless,

GE

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  59
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,402
  • Content Per Day:  0.99
  • Reputation:   2,154
  • Days Won:  28
  • Joined:  02/10/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/26/1971

We are supposed to be very closely connected to chimpanzee's on the "evolutionary" scale.

How come then I wake up craving a cup of coffee and not a banana?

Sorry, just a random thought... :cool2:

Fez, have you seen what you started? LOL. I had to go back to the first post to see if this was actually your joke thread or not. I'm going to go get me a cup of coffee...think I'll have some banana flavored cream.....

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Oh, look what a mathmetician/philosopher says about the Theory of Evolution! You really love fallacies don't you?

LOL - you belittle a philosopher of science in matters of science but you hang your hat on a judge's ruling in Dover. You gotta love the irony. We can settle the matter right here on this thread. I have challenged you before to present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. All you could do was hang your head down and run away with your pockets empty. So one more time--give us what you have but please don't embarrass yourself again by demonstrating you are in way over your head. You're up, amigo.

I belittle your continued appeals to authority - this is a fallacy, get that through your head. When you get an understanding of what fallacies are go back and read your posts and you will find them littered with fallacies.

You asked for facts about the Discovery Institute's deceit and I presented them clearly. This is not an appeal to authority, that was an actual trail in which the Discovery Institute (DI) attempted to pass off ID as science and THEY UTTERLY FAILED. The judge saw it for what it was, an attempt to insert religion into the science curriculum. DI FAILED to support their claim. They are not interested in science, they are interested in religion that is why they seek public appeal. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want about this but all you have to do is read their history and their association with the Wedge document to understand what they are.

I presented two studies that answered your common ancestry question - I did this twice; that you ignore them or hand wave them away is your problem. Search my posts and find them.

Are you an IDer? Are you a supporter of the Discovery Institute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Your studies do not demonstrate common ancestry at all and it appears that you cannot present or defend your mythology on this thread. That’s what we already knew but you gave it your best. Next.

Oh the irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2012
  • Status:  Offline

You asked for facts about the Discovery Institute's deceit and I presented them clearly.

As already noted – Dover was all about politics, political correctness and the hijacking of a small and insignificant part of science by scientists of the atheist type.

No, it was about a school board letting IDers introduce a corrupt, unscientific concept into the science classroom.

YOU REALIZE THE LEAD WITNESS WAS A CHRISTIAN, RIGHT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2012
  • Status:  Offline

No, it was about a school board letting IDers introduce a corrupt, unscientific concept into the science classroom.

YOU REALIZE THE LEAD WITNESS WAS A CHRISTIAN, RIGHT?

Again, you miss the irony here - the judge allows the corrupt Darwinian mythology that is passed off as science in the classroom and many Christians try (unsuccessfully) to blend the Judeo-Christian tradition of a Creator-God with the leading atheistic creation myth but it can't be done. There are no surprises there - what else do you have since you have failed to support your myth on this thread or is that about it?

What a hilarious and absurd interpretation!

Yes, you're smirk is a devastating blow to evolution.

0.jpg

Edited by slowpoke55
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  110
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2012
  • Status:  Offline

No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.

As noted - we can settle the matter right here on this thread. Present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. Listen...the sound of silence...

I find it interesting that you ask for evidence from slowpoke and then he or I post online sources for you to look at (such as the links I provided) you simply avoid them and do not respond. When you do respond you quote mine either our responses or the comments of the people writing the papers without providing proper context. I think slowpoke is just as frustrated as I am about this. You are holding a double standard. You expect us to go through all of your "evidence" but you do not read ours. You have so far failed to respond to the last Augustine post in 122 which I reposted again to your benefit. You also did not respond to the links I posted. How are we expected to carry on when you just go ahead and ignore our evidence?

As a matter of interest waldoz are you a young earth creationist or a old earth creationist?

I have traveled around the world and have never seen a date-stamp for the Earth yet. As noted before – I take Genesis chapters 1-11 has historical narrative and my worldview (unlike yours) does not stand or fall on the age of the Earth.

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah … for in six days Jehovah made the heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” (
Exodus 20:8-11
)

Stop dodging the question. Do you believe that the world was created around 6000 years ago (the view held by Young Earth Creationists based on the math they do using a strict interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis)? Yes or no will suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  730
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  07/19/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/13/1993

I find it interesting that you ask for evidence from slowpoke and then he or I post online sources for you to look at (such as the links I provided) you simply avoid them and do not respond.

Hey - you are the guys making the extraordinary claims - not me. You boldly claim that man and butterflies share a common ancestor. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - evidence that thus far has remained missing in action. And for the record - I did respond to slowpoke - his sources present the typical Darwinian circular reasoning and speculation that provided nothing that demonstrates humans and chimps have a common ancestor - and I don't really debate websites. Why don't you and slowpoke put your heads together and present your evidence (if you have any) on this thread for everyone to examine. I will even accept your mediocre evidence just for fun. If your version of evolutionism is so obvious as you claim then that shouldn't be too difficult - right? If you guys can't do that then we will understand you have no evidence to provide. Or you can simply admit you have none. Good luck.

So it is ok for you to post links to the discovery institute that we went and read but we can't post links? Double standard much?

I had a feeling you would say that you don't like debating websites or that you don't have enough time.... this is what you always do to avoid actually reading the evidence. Or you quote mine the sites for something completely out of context that you think supports your position.

If you could read just one of the links I mentioned. Perhaps this one (http://www.nature.co...olutiongems.pdf) as it is short and provides multiple examples, you could come back with your criticisms. I have read the article as well so please don't try to quote mine it like you tend to enjoy doing. Thanks!

Stop dodging the question. Do you believe that the world was created around 6000 years ago (the view held by Young Earth Creationists based on the math they do using a strict interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis)? Yes or no will suffice.

I answered your question - I have never seen a date-stamp on the Earth - for some reason God didn't consider it necessary. I do believe what the Bible clearly teachers - Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative as it has always been. Hope that helps.

So I am assuming when you state that Genesis 1-11 is a historical narrative you believe in a 6-day (literal day) creation account. In this case I am going to ask you some questions.

How do you reconcile that belief with modern cosmology which shows that our universe most likely came about about 14 billion years ago through a singularity commonly known as the Big Bang.

As you desire evidence - the top of evidence for an old universe is as follows:

1. Stellar Evolution (i.e. the length of time it takes stars to develop extrapolating from known data about stars and how they grow with time as well as the chemistry and physics behind fusion.

2. The Speed of Light - We know the distances between universes and how fast light travels in light years. Some stars are millions of light years away. If you attempt to argue that the speed of light would have changed dramatically, know that scientists have looked into this and determined it could have only changed by a few percentage points (Norman & Setterfield, 1987).

3. WMAP data collected by NASA

The top evidence for the big bang:

1. The Red Shift

2. The Hubble Diagram

3. Abundance of lighter elements within the universe

4. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

etc.

Read more here: http://www.talkorigi...g.html#evidence

or I can explain in more detail if you can't time out of your day to read something....

You have so far failed to respond to the last Augustine post in 122 which I reposted again to your benefit.

I recall answering your post in various responses over the course of this thread. If you feel a specific question was not addressed them please present it and I will be happy to re-answer.

You answered my initial posts on Augustine both nothing about it since 122. If you could just respond to my counter in that post, it would be great. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...