Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on February 16, 2010 at 9:10pm

While in Alexandria last nov on the Darwin Now conference I wnadered rounfd the back streets, absolutely no dogs but loads of cats.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 20, 2010 at 7:38pm

Ah, so there are no dogs in Alexandria, just as there were no dinosaurs in Ancient Egypt. Amazing how the evolutionist mind works.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 20, 2010 at 7:35pm

Jim
Toms abounded in Bible times - but none are mentioned.
But the Egyptions certainly knew about them:
That's my point - not getting a specific mention in the Bible does not mean they didn't exist then.

Strangely, no mention of dinos or anything resembling dinos, in ancient Egyption writings.
There are plenty of mentions of 'dragons' and similiar creatures in ancient literature. Some may well be fictional, some may well be actual. But I have pointed to a specific description in Job, one that matches well the dinosaur.

Similarly kangaroos, even though wackjob Ham claims they originated in the middle east. Again, even ancient Egyption writings only talk anout animals indigenous to the local region and perhaps a little further afield, and only contemporary animals at that. Nothing in these ancient writings about dinos, or even the long extinct mamals and birds etc.'

I'm not familiar with Egyptian writings, but I would be surprised if they did not include beasts that are unknown today - again, perhaps mythical, but also perhaps actual. Since fossil marsupials have been found in South America, there is no reason to think they were not in Egypt at some time also. But that does not mean they had to be know to the Egyptian recorders, nor that we would have inherited any recording they made.

Navel is mentioned in the King James version. I thought you claimed the bible was inherent ?
Inherent? Infallible, certainly. But the KJV is a translation, not a perfect rendering of the original texts. Some detail of the actual words:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H83...

It's not the level that is crucial - any man/dinosaur evidence would be decisive, no matter the level.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about Ian.
Possibly. I'm not a scientist, so my observations on the scientific implications are open to challenge. But I'm not gullible either, to accept the word of scientists without reflecting that they may be deceitful, biased, or self-censoring.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on February 20, 2010 at 10:02pm

Jim

Havent YECs been repeatedly shown to be deceitful, and biased?

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on February 20, 2010 at 10:35pm

Michael

>Havent YECs been repeatedly shown to be deceitful, and biased?<

No, however Evolutionists have been so shown.

Martin

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 24, 2010 at 1:36pm

Jim
no mention whatsoever of kangaroos even though wackjob Ham claims they originated in the middle East.
So you still cling to the idea that ANE literature mentions all things that existed in their locality???

You have to be pretty gullible to believe that dinos roamed around theGarden of eden alongside Adam and Eve, just like in the Flintstones.
You make the presupposition that they couldn't. That's not proof, just your wishful thinking.

That the Earth/Universe is not 6,000 years old,that there was no 6/24 hr. creation and that there was no global flood is not being deciteful, biased, or self censoring. Perhaps you could give some examples of scientists doing this ?
Sure:
Deceitful - See Dr. John Baumgardner's exposure of the deceit used by establishment scientists to conceal the presence of significant levels of 14C, which has a half-life of only 5,730 years, in biological samples that are supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of year old :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-c...

Biased - See this article on presuppositions:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/13/feedback-interp...

Self-censoring -
Self-censorship the bane of academic life
http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Opinions&articleI...

"Self-censorship" can also be found in scientific publications. Usually, a scientist can feel discouraged from releasing their findings because of a popular ideology or political agenda. Examples of self-censorship in scientific publications that have been criticized as politically motivated include scientists under the Third Reich withholding findings that disagreed with the commonly-held beliefs in differences between races, or the refusal of these scientists under Hitler to support General Relativity (which got the reputation as "Jewish science"). More recently, certain scientists have withheld their findings related to climate changes caused by pollution and to endangered species.[4][5][6]
Professor Heinz Klatt argues that hate laws, speech codes, cowardice, and political correctness have resulted in an intellectually repressive atmosphere in modern day academic circles with widespread self-censorship on topics like homosexuality, (learning) disabilities, Islam, and genetic differences between human races and sexes.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

And for some background:
Scientific Naturalism and the Unfalsifiable Myth of Evolution
http://afterall.net/papers/25

Permalink Reply by Michael on February 24, 2010 at 2:43pm

Ian

You cited;
Deceitful - See Dr. John Baumgardner's exposure of the deceit used by establishment scientists to conceal the presence of significant levels of 14C, which has a half-life of only 5,730 years, in biological samples that are supposed to be tens or hundreds of millions of year old :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-c...

Biased - See this article on presuppositions:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/13/feedback-interp...

These are both dishonest papers from AIG. It is time that AIG started to be more careful and honest in what they write.

The whole issue of C14 is well-known and if only peopel like the AIG "scientists" actually considered what is said a bout it they would not produce such articles.

Never believe a word of anything on AIG site

Permalink Reply by Ploughboy on February 24, 2010 at 8:22pm

Michael

>Never believe a word of anything on AIG site<

Are you having problems with the ninth commandment again?

Martin

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 24, 2010 at 8:25pm

Jim
The bible only speaks of animals local to the region, and perhaps a little further afield.

Indeed - and as I pointed out, omits some too, as doe all ANE literature. So only a fool would say that a creature did not exist if it is not mentioned in the literature.

There is absolutely NO mention of dinosaurs, other extinct prehistoric animals, or kangaroos for that matter.

As I pointed out, the Job reference describes no creature on earth today, but it does seem an apt one for a dinosaur. How can you say isn't? What sort of creature do you think it describes?

The age of the Earth is NOT being debated in science, despite ficticious, misleading, and fraudulent YEC claims. Whether you like it or not Ian, the Earth/Universe is not 6,000 years old and that is an established scientific fact:
I showed you the deceit and you ignore it. And your claim that there is no debate rests on the fact that evolutionists refuse to recognise the YEC arguments of scientists. I could say there is no debate among Christians about the age of the earth, if I rule out any argument against YEC as non-Christian. It is certainly mistaken Christian argument, but it is one side of a debate. You followers of Scientism are so unsure of your position that you censor debate by pretending there is none.

This paper by G. Brent Dalrymple was originally produced by the US goverment for distribution in schools, in response to the many fraudulent claims on radiometric dating techniques:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

I would urge you to read it.

Just the usual stuff, based on uniformitarian presuppositions. If it takes 10 years to lay down so much earth today, it must have taken a comparative amount of time to lay down the layers we observe. Ignoring the possibility of catastrophe that would lay down great numbers of layers in a very short time.

It also assumes start positions for the amount of radioactive material in the sample, and that the rate of decay cannot have altered in the past.

All presuppositions, not facts.

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 24, 2010 at 8:32pm

Michael
These are both dishonest papers from AIG. It is time that AIG started to be more careful and honest in what they write.

The whole issue of C14 is well-known and if only peopel like the AIG "scientists" actually considered what is said a bout it they would not produce such articles.

Never believe a word of anything on AIG site

The scientists who produce the YEC material are dishonest, or you and your colleagues who promote TE are. Not only do I have character assessment of them based on personal knowledge of some of them, but I also have your testimony about the Bible to inform me. There is no question as to who represents honesty.

Permalink Reply by Ian Major on February 9, 2010 at 9:21pm

We don't. Just your interpretation of bits of it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Martin Peter Clarke on February 9, 2010 at 10:12pm

Yes you do. What 'interpretation' of what bits ?

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 65
• 66
• 67
• 68
• 69
• …
• 84
• Next ›
• Page