Finding an answer to Darwin’s Dilemma

Press Relief Queen's University ^ | 7 December 2006 | Staff

[Central Scrutiniser]

Its not in there, the bible is not a scientific textbook.

Go ahead, go to a university with a bible and ask to be a professor teaching an accredited course in electronics or mathematics using just the bible.

Its a book of stories, written for illiterate people, using stories and metaphors, not a book to teach someone how to interpret the world around them and unlock the mysteries of the world.

Your hypocrisy is only equaled by your willful ignorance.

[metmom]

See some of Elsie's posts. I believe God created everything because Scripture states it regularly and often. It's not a matter of finding an odd verse of two and taking them out of context or reading into it. There are many and many which Jesus Himself stated. I believe that God created plant and animal life because it talks about it in very specific terms. It states that He created animals *after their kind*. It doesn't indicate that they arose from each other. That's why I don't accept speciation. Variation in species happens but that is not the same as speciation; species to species evolution.

Scripture is quite clear that man came about as a separate act of creation. God saw that all He created was good and then decided to make man. It specifically states that He created man from the dust of the earth. If man had evolved, why would He go to the trouble of making that distinction?

As far as the age of the Earth, I am familiar with Ussher's Chronology and how he determined it but that is not Scripture itself. It is his calculations based on some assumptions he made. If the Bible itself clearly gave a specific date for the moment and week of creation, then I would accept that but it doesn't. There are many other reputable Christians and Biblical scholars that have different views on the age of the earth for several different reasons. This is one:
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

As far as one of the issues with the age of the earth is the assumption that everything has always been as it is now. When man sinned, Scripture says that corruption entered the world. That indicates a change of condition in the physical world. In Genesis, there are descriptions of the world before the Flood and the conditions that existed then and they are different than they are now, another change. Those could throw a huge monkey wrench into the calculations of the age of the earth by radiometric dating and other geologic processes that could have proceeded at different rates. There have even been some cases where these processes aren't proceeding as expected even today. The Lost Squadron is one such example; the planes from WWII were found buried under 250 feet if ice in Greenland which doesn't fit at all with currently accepted ice built up time frames.

When the Bible states that something happened, there is no reason to interpret it in any other way. When poetry, allegories, parables are being used, it's pretty clear what they are and anyone with any working knowledge of grammar would know that those are not literal, especially when it is said *He told them this parable*. How can one be reasonably expected to take a clearly stated parable literally?

So I accept that God created things in the manner He did because it states it so clearly. The age of the earth and universe is more indeterminate, IMO.

However, not accepting the current scientific interpretation of the fossil record does not equate with a blanket rejection of science as a whole. Science does not rest on the ToE; the ToE rests on science. It's science as it stands today that is being used to support the ToE but the ToE cannot be used to support science. Also, there is the automatic assumption that if there's a discrepancy between science and Scripture, the Bible is automatically the document that is wrong because it doesn't agree with current scientific findings. But current scientific findings are just that- current, and are subject to change as new data comes in. Once new findings come in, the older scientific findings were shown to be incomplete of outright wrong. So how can something that subject to change be used to *disprove* something else? In order to do that it would have to be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the science is right, true, and infallible and I don't think it's arrived there yet.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Which was the crux of my questioning of the conclusion:  why did they assume it was "nutrients released from glacier melt off" when it could have just as easily been warmer weather increasing habitat range.

[BlueNgold]

But where did the single cell animals come from?
And where did the water come from?
And how did the water freeze? Then melt?

[Psycho_Bunny]

Go ahead, go to a university with a bible and ask to be a professor teaching an accredited course in electronics or mathematics using just the bible.

I've always wondered why evolution is such a bristling threat to religious persons when, say - a medical scientist describing how the circulatory system distributes oxygen isn't an equal threat.

Evolution is "how" not "why".

[metmom]

Its not in there, the bible is not a scientific textbook.

Some of it's there as I said before and it's written in a manner which most anyone anywhere can understand. No one said it was a thorough university level treatment of the subject but just because it isn't, doesn't mean it's wrong. If that's the case, then is all high school and elementary school education is wrong because it's at a lower level and explained in terms geared for the age and ability of the students learning it? Because it isn't a thorough university level treatment of the subject area?

Its a book of stories, written for illiterate people, using stories and metaphors, not a book to teach someone how to interpret the world around them and unlock the mysteries of the world.

Well, that's only your opinion, which means that it's nothing more than that- the opinion of person out of 5 billion plus. That doesn't make it an established fact.

What hypocrisy? How have you determined that I am a hypocrite? In what areas have you determined that I am willfully ignorant? How do you know what I know and why?

[metmom]

Which is why I'm all for global warming. I don't care much for the alternative.

[Coyoteman]

However, not accepting the current scientific interpretation of the fossil record does not equate with a blanket rejection of science as a whole.

When one picks and chooses, for religious reasons, which parts of science to accept and which parts to reject, one is not doing science; one is engaging in apologetics (defense of religion).

The methods used to derive the theory of evolution are the same as for the theories explaining gravitation and germs, and all other scientific theories.

That some deny these theories for religious reasons does not detract from the accuracy of the theories in any way. (See tagline for the conclusion.)

[Central Scrutiniser]

Evolution is only a threat to their beliefs because they allow it to be.

Which doesn't say much for their higher reasoning.

[presently no screen name]

Evolution is only a threat to their beliefs because they allow it to be.

Evolution is not a threat to me in any way, shape or form. I am safe and secure. Praise God! Your Darwin/evolution beliefs is a threat to you but you cannot see that, yet.

[Central Scrutiniser]

How is the quest for knowledge about evolution a threat.

God gave you a brain, use it to its fullest. If God didn't want us to learn about evolution, He wouldn't have left so much data and clues.

[presently no screen name]

How is the quest for knowledge about evolution a threat.

Anything that we thirst after that opposes God's Word is a threat to us. It may look good and safe on the outside but it is always wrapped in some form of truth to appear safe and/or entice but underneath is the lie. We end up believing the lie is actually truth because deception has entered in.

God gave you a brain, use it to its fullest. If God didn't want us to learn about evolution, He wouldn't have left so much data and clues.

God gave us a brain and free will. He wanted us to come to Him because we want to - with our free will, we have a choice. Same w/our brain - we can use it for good or otherwise. I use my brain to the fullest for what is pleasing to God (hopefully). God doesn't want us to learn about evolution or anything that goes against His Word - man makes that choice. He wants us to learn about Him and His Word but, again, that's a choice. The road one chooses to follow in life has eternal consequences or rewards.

God knew the theory of evolution would rear it's ugly head. Perhaps, that is why he was so specific and redundant in Genesis were He states,... 'then it was evening, then morning'. Unless one wants to spin that to suit their need - it is quite specific. He completed it all in six days by speaking it into existence. Who is anyone to say He didn't, He couldn't - it must have happened another way. Or He 'started it' and let it evolve on it's own. God is a God of order and completeness.

Lastly, God warned and spoke about deceit over and over again. So it is a real threat to us. With deception comes denial. Therefore, we, also, know we will deny that we are being deceived. I'm sure everyone can all relate to that.

[Central Scrutiniser]

It doesn't oppose God's word. You are a bible literalist, too bad, but the bible isn't a science book. Evolution does nothing to shake the faith of someone that is comfortable in their beliefs.

It takes so much effort these days to be so purposefully ignorant, you really are letting the higher functions of your brain go to rot.

[presently no screen name]

It doesn't oppose God's word.

And you talk about purposefully ignorant?

Evolution does nothing to shake the faith of someone that is comfortable in their beliefs.

I already told you that. It's easy to be comfortable when you know The Truth. But the Darwin Cult wants to force feed their beliefs to children who are impressionable and may not be grounded in The Word. Here's what God says about that..

"If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around the neck and be thrown into the sea.

It's a given - this country will reap the consequences of what they are sowing. One can't say the name of Jesus in school but Darwin is worshiped and given an open door by the liberals.

It takes so much effort these days to be so purposefully ignorant

Then why do you put so much effort into it?

you really are letting the higher functions of your brain go to rot.

If you put more emphasize on the soul instead of the brain - you will make progress. You see, since my soul is my priority it will not let deception in; therefore rot can't touch my brain. I'm covered. God is good and He has me in the palm of His hand.

[Elsie]

It's Bushes fault!

[Elsie]

Some of it's there as I said before and it's written in a manner which most anyone anywhere can understand.

Yup...

2 Corinthians 1

13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

[Elsie]

Evolutionists should not care about Global Warming® or cooling, for the Mighty Steam Roller of Change will keep right on happening.

[Elsie]

If God didn't want us to learn about evolution, He wouldn't have left so much data and clues.

Likewise...

If God didn't want us to learn about Himself, He wouldn't have sent His Son to show us the Way.

---

NIV Colossians 1:15-21
 15.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
 16.  For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
 17.  He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
 18.  And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
 19.  For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
 20.  and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

 

 

NIV Colossians 2:9-10
  9.  For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
 10.  and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

[Elsie]

It doesn't oppose God's word.

GOD's Word opposes it.

[Central Scrutiniser]

When evangelicals lose an argument, they have to quote the bible.

Use all of the brain God gave you.