Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists

Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 03 December 2004 | SHARON BEGLEY

[Havoc]

Says it neatly. There is no good way to deny a thing for which science has accumulated massive amounts of evidence over more than a century.

Science has accumulated evidence; but, not for evolution. Christianity has no bicker with evidence. It's the spin put on it by evolutionists that's at question. Ala "Lucy" - science is good at manufacturing what it can't observe and hiding what it would rather not have observed.

[Just mythoughts]

[E's better hurry up cause that hour glass of "GOD's" time is nigh on to empty.]

[Ah, but note I did not appoint a TIME I said in "GOD's" TIME, we are told we would not know the day, but the season.]

"Oh, come now. You said more than that, you said that the "hour glass ... is nigh on to empty". You were clearly saying that the time was getting close, not just that it would happen in "GOD's TIME", whenever that might be..."


Two thoughts place together "GOD's TIME", hourglass. There is the individual in "GOD's TIME" upon which the death of the flesh takes place and the 'soul' returns to Him that sent it, and there is the "TIME" established by "GOD" as to what activities would take place.

There are certain activities foretold that would come to pass and those events have not happened yet, when I have no clue, nor did I indicate I did.

Example we are told that it would be as in the 'days of Noe' (Noah) and that has not happened yet although the stage is surely being set.

[Havoc]

Teaching complex numbers to Fundamentalists (inter alia) isn't easy either.

Ah, the old 'you just can't understand cause we're smarter than you' argument. God apparently designed the universe to make you guys look like morons. Cause planets spin in both directions in violation of the law of Conservation... LOL. But, you go ahead, bein smarter must have an advantage somewhere that we missed.

[Havoc]

If the world evolved then it was set in motion by God and he planned it that way.

It ain't that simple. Scripture says plainly that God made man from the dust of the earth in a seperate event after creating the animals. That's wrench number one. Wrench number two is that there was no such thing as death till Adam sinned. This also ocurred long after all the creating was done - which is in contention directly with evolution. Wrench number three is that the language of Genesis doesn't allow it. The literal language is THE FIRST DAY, THE SECOND DAY, etc. Definitive article associated with day. There's only one first day. And there is no precident for translating the original hebrew to anything but "day". Nothing else stands up. It only gets worse.

If you try to force ages onto this, you're violating exigesis rules and you destroy context among other things. God made plants one day, Light the following day, and insects to polinate the plants on the next. That's called dealing rapidly with built in interdependancies which exist for the benefit of all involved. At each point of the story, evolution directly contradicts scripture and posits something destructive to the situation. Thus, you can't say God just set something in motion and let it do it's own thing here. We have the story telling as much as we need to know about what happened. The problem here is people playing at religion wanting not to have the image that science and religion are in argument with one another. They aren't in any way. Christianity and evolution are in direct contention with one another and evolution isn't science. It's just propped up by scientists with an agenda. They start from their conclusions and suppress/dismiss anything that blows holes in their pet conclusion. That ain't science.

[PatrickHenry]

Naive Theories of Motion

Interesting article. Not surprising at all.

[PatrickHenry]

Cause planets spin in both directions in violation of the law of Conservation... LOL.

O the joy!

[Havoc]

The earth isn't a closed system and gets a net energy input from the sun.

Problem with your presentation is in this statement. The earth isn't a closed system per se; but, the universe is. And the Earth lives in that universe. The sun is destructive to everything it presents itself to with one exception - chlorophyl. So, your own example destroys your premise. You can introduce energy into any system you want, that doesn't mean the system is capable of making use of said energy. Wherever it can't make use of said energy, said energy is destructive to the system - not beneficial. Thus the law itself. Your exception to the rule requires another exception to the rule to be relevant in minor circumstances. If a man dies on the operating table and is brain dead at 90, you can introduce all the energy to his system you want, the brain is dead and the body will continue decaying. The end of that is disorder as the body breaks down. You can keep the circulatory system and resperatory system going; but, without the brain to tell every other system what to do, you're just spinning your wheels. It's like putting a car with a dead engine up on blocks and spinning the wheels to convince someone that the car is still good. Not without an engine it ain't. Introduce all the energy to that car you want, it ain't goin anywhere unless you can replace the engine. In the case of the human body - that's impossible.

[Just mythoughts]

"The literal language is THE FIRST DAY, THE SECOND DAY, etc. Definitive article associated with day. There's only one first day. And there is no precident for translating the original hebrew to anything but "day". Nothing else stands up. It only gets worse. "

Peter speaks specifically to the meaning of the word "day".

IIPeter 3 starts off with the statement "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as there were from the beginning of the creation."

NOTE subject is 'beginning' = Genesis the creation.

5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of OLD, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Now this is not Noah's flood as Peter has just spoken about Noah's flood in the previous chapter.

6. Whereby the world that then WAS, being overflowed with water perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth which are NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the DAY of judgment and 'perdition' of ungodly men.

8. BUT, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, THAT ONE DAY IS with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as ONE DAY.

9 The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 BUT, the DAY of the LORD will come as a thief in the night;

in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the WORKS that are therein shall be burned up.

We are going to have a real environmental CLEAN-up!

[Havoc]

Now Ezekiel 28, tells us all about the devil being created and he was created perfect, yet not one word in Genesis about the devil being created yet the devil was in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis doesn't mention the creation of Satan by name. It does however state that all things that were created were created in those 7 days. If you actually bother reading the text, you'll see that Satan was in Eden which wasn't created till day 6. But Satan was an Angel, which would put him being created either on day 1 or 2. No problem. I'd also note that it doesn't say the earth "BECAME" void and without form.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; ..it says after God created it, it was void and without form. IE, like a house being built, he created the foundation - the planet itself; but, he'd not done anything to it to finish the work he'd started yet. Kinda like making a bookcase. If all you do is create wood, it's void and without form so far. Once you build the actual bookcase, it is merely void. Once you populate it with books, it is no longer void. You've purposedly distorted what it says. You've done the same with these other passages you cite. They've nothing whatever to do with what you're arguing. Scripture speaks plainly of Two earths. The first is the one we're on now. The second will come when this one is destroyed in the end times. Spin or lie about that.

[Havoc]

We simply don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis as it flies in the face of the physical evidence.

There is no physical evidence you can produce that argues against the account in Genesis. The spin you associate with the evidence is something else altogether.

[Havoc]

Then comes a description of cleaning up a MESS, because it does not say again the heavens and earth were created.

No, read it again. There is no mess to clean up. God created raw materials then set about through six days to use those raw materials to make something - finished products. There is no place mentioned any rebellion. That's something you're introducing that is not only unsupportable by the text; but, outright refuted by the text. You read just far enough to get yourself in trouble and when your lie is pointed out, you've nowhere to go with it. Death didn't come till Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden AFTER the creation - AFTER the first 7 days of existance. If you have a rebellion and God destroyed everything, then death exists before Adam Sinned. There is no place you can find any support for such a blaring contradiction. And it calls God a liar - something that God cannot, by his very nature, be.

[Havoc]

Ah, but it's not the rosey picture you paint, is it. The thought that dinosaurs could move at warm blooded paces and therefore be warm blooded was the notion of a very few in the community and was accepted only after the evidence for it went public. Once the evidence was public and near incontestible, then things changed. But it was a long time coming and with great resistance. The community is not the fluid organism you describe. It is ICE which thaws every once in a while to take another form only after someone boils the cube and ticks a lot of people off by showing they aren't as smart as they thought. There are too many egos involved who think themselves too smart to be wrong. Seems to be common amongst certain types for what that's worth.

[PatrickHenry]

I've added your Ensatina eschscholtzi link to the still-growing List-O-Links, and in its honor I re-arranged a few things to create a new section called "NOT JUST FOSSILS ... EVIDENCE OF OBSERVED SPECIATION."

[Havoc]

LOL. Might I remind you that the whole scientific community used to believe the earth to be flat.. used to believe blood-letting cured illness.. etc. The idea of little things called germs that could travel from person to person if doctors didn't wash their hands between examinations was disputed as absurd. The science community lives on majority opinion and heralds itself as superior and intellectually above reproach while it holds any given belief. It derides any contestor to the point of destroying them at times. And they condescend to change only after making fools of themselves much of the time. Majority opinion ain't worth much.

[Junior]

There is no physical evidence you can produce that argues against the account in Genesis.

An Earth and Solar System dated at a few billion years old; a fossil record that just happens to show a progression from the single-celled to multi-cellular to increasingly complex organisms over billions of years -- all corroborated by multiple dating types to obviate any discrepancies.

Of course, what you are saying is there is no physical evidence that we can produce that you will accept, regardless of its provenence. You are one of the few creationists who make no bones about flat-out rejecting any evidence that conflicts with your beliefs.

[Just mythoughts]

"Genesis doesn't mention the creation of Satan by name. It does however state that all things that were created were created in those 7 days. If you actually bother reading the text, you'll see that Satan was in Eden which wasn't created till day 6. But Satan was an Angel, which would put him being created either on day 1 or 2. No problem. I'd also note that it doesn't say the earth "BECAME" void and without form."

I have bothered to read the text and I have also bothered to not leave out or put in what is not there.

Isaiah 14:12 HOW art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of GOD: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend about the heights of the clouds; I will be like the MOST HIGH.'

15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the PIT.

16. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, 'IS this the 'man' that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?'

This continues and we are told the roles this one is allowed to play and the reason why he is allowed to play these roles, but in the end he, Lucifer, and in this age called Satan, the devil, the accuser, destroyer, serpent, etc. is sentenced to death.

Lucifer did not rebel in this FLESH AGE.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. AND the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

WHO is darkness and what is deep, hint WATER!

Now you point to Ezekiel when now the devil is called by another name king of Tyre (know anything about Tyre).

Ezekiel 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, 'Thus saith the Lord GOD;

'Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; ........."

BIG CLUE COMING

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou has walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou was perfect in thy ways from the DAY that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee.



"Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; ..it says after God created it, it was void and without form. IE, like a house being built, he created the foundation - the planet itself; but, he'd not done anything to it to finish the work he'd started yet. Kinda like making a bookcase. If all you do is create wood, it's void and without form so far. Once you build the actual bookcase, it is merely void. Once you populate it with books, it is no longer void. You've purposedly distorted what it says. You've done the same with these other passages you cite. They've nothing whatever to do with what you're arguing. Scripture speaks plainly of Two earths. The first is the one we're on now. The second will come when this one is destroyed in the end times. Spin or lie about that."


Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are SOTTISH children and they have none understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Jeremiah is not talking about Noah's flood he is talking about that without form and void and darkness in Genesis 1:2

[Havoc]

(it jibes with the evidence and is falsifiable

It isn't falsifiable. You show me one blasted animal on this planet that can couple with it's own kind and produce a completely different kind of animal that can reproduce it's own kind. You can't. It thusly is NOT falsifiable. It is a belief system - not science.

[Havoc]

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary

You've just defended Hitler and the Nazi attrocities. Without God, you can rationalize the worth of anything. With God, you have to accept the standards he sets or answer for it. That is why evolution exists. That alone.

[Just mythoughts]

You do have the 'freewill' to choose to believe what parts and pieces you select to believe.

[Havoc]

It does happen both ways. Since they started teaching evolution, there has been a snowball effect on the youth turning from religion in general as evolution calls their parents' religion a lie. That's why it's in the schools. And the result of that is discernable in the historical data showing the decline of morality and it's affect on society since the 1960s. The lie is so pervasive that the damage is widespread. The extent of the damage is matched only by the anger of those who finally realize they've been lied to and after examining all the facts. Once one reaches that point, they have two options, God or their own path. The choice doesn't change - the perception that the choice exists does.
The real impact is easy to see. If you can convince people that God's a liar or that scripture is a lie, you can get by with anything. Cause those people aren't going to hold you to a standard if you've convinced them (however wrongly) that their standard is a lie. Now you can get by with murder - literally, because everything then becomes situational and relative. To Hitler, Aryans needed more room to thrive and the jews posed a problem as being the "chosen" people when Aryans were supposed to be the "chosen" people. In a moral relativistic society, this becomes all the reason in the world to commit genocide.. just as "my life will be impacted negatively if I have this baby" becomes all the reason needed in the world to murder a baby - to the glee of the liberal who wants to have unprotected sex with as many women as possible with no responsibility, then legislate a tax on all of us to pay for that damage.
</p>