Evolution vs creation - let's give up on sounding educated!

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Chuck,

Billions of years of evolution fit into the universe that our, omni-present to all physical time, Spiritual God created thousands of years ago. Time is the rate of interaction between mass, energy and empty space, all of which God created thousands of years ago. Time has no constraints on Spiritual God who looks at the whole of physical time as like looking at a picture on a wall. On the week Adam was made our Omni-powerful God molded both infinite past and infinite future creation into place. God created time outward from Adam because His focal point was to create a free willed being who could share love with Him. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/creation.html

How can Jesus be fully free willed man and fully God during the same period of His physical life time? Scriptures tell us that upon Christ’s ressurection He is eternally begotten of God. Born again into the Spirit of God, Jesus now lives in eternal Spritual omni-presence to the whole of physical time from before creation to beyond the end of time. Please take a look at this link which takes a look at Jesus eternal birth to Our Father. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/4a.htm

Once a person understands that physical time has no constraints on our eternally begotten Spiritual Lord Jesus Christ, it is not hard to envision our Father, with Christ at His side, creating past and future physical time any way God desires it and from any point in physical time that God desires to begin His work.

Before Noah landed the Ark, there had never been rainbows. After Noah landed the Ark, God made creation that for all infinite past and all infinite future there are rainbows. The whole of physical time, future, present and past, must bend to the creating Hand of our all Powerful God.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[ELDEN_S_WIFE]

Hi,

Interesting discussion here. However the only people able to follow it are those with very high IQ’s in the scientific arena. You guys have at it.

However, I have skimmed some of the above and got a little dizzy I must admit at times. But I have one question that will show my ignorance.

In what museum do they have the skeleton of the whale with legs?

My limited knowledge of fossils is based on my public education and many hours of watching science programs on “Lucy” and other evolution theory shows on TV. (Yes, this isn’t a deep well of knowledge to pull from)
But in my humble opinion, I have seen very few skeleton’s that have enough bones in them to prove that any of your theories are fact. It always amazed me that they could find a hip bone of an animal suposedly 10 gazillion years old and come up with a full picture of the animal, his diet habits, his temperament, how he lived and how he died. Let alone (I may have gotten this wrong since I was paddling for dear life trying to keep my head above the waters while reading some of the above posts) how the ear of said animal works and evolved.

Anyway, I will pray for everyone who has posted in this thread. I pray that God will shine his light of truth bright enough for you all to continue your journey alone the narrow road to heaven. I would hate for anyone to become so intelligent, or narrow minded that they would not see the forest for the trees.

In the end, heaven is all that matters. I look forward to “Creation 101” when I get there to have this all straightened out for me. I hope to see you all there too!

God is Great!

 

[Chuck]

Very thoughtful Steve Merten,

In your reply you convey the idea that God created the the Universe with a perceived past.

Since God cannot lie then He would have created a Universe that mankind would believe is billions of years but only looks that way. I have come to believe that God created time and space in the event of the BIG BANG. That through His perfect design the universe is actually 14.3 billion years old and His work of creation continued throughout this time.

Again, the methods of dating that rely on physics, geology, and quntum mechanics agree on an old universe and old earth. Your reasoning would have God creating a physical universe with a false age when measured by the physical laws He also created.

Your thoughts?

Chuck

 

[Melchior]

Vindex Urvogel:

I have my copy of Darwin’s works right here…might you point out for us the exact page on which we might find this claim?

As far as I was aware, evolutionary biology was not a major underpinning of National Socialism, but perhaps my research has been bankrupt. Might you explicitly point out where within the historiography pertaining to National Socialism reliance on evolutionary biology was made? Better yet, let me get my copy of the Bormann vermerke; would you happen to know where within that document, publishing as it does most of Hitler’s personal commentary for the war years, that he makes reference to National Socialism being contingent upon evolutionary biology? Lastly, these “original” evolutionists who were racist…who would those be and could you provide explicit references where they express their status as racist? The evolutionists of 60 years ago, fortunately, were very prolific in their writing, e.g, Ernst Mayr and G. G. Simpson. I have a whole host of their works, but have never seen any reference therein to African-Americans being somehow phylogenetically more primitive than caucasians. From any of the published works of these authors, could you provide an explicit reference to such statements? Much appreciated.

Vindex Urvogel

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

The full name itself is racist. The “favoured races” are references to human beings. If you cannot find any thing on racial development in Darwin then I am wondering if you actually have read his stuff.

As for Hitler and National Socialism, common sense would have made it clear that I was referring to his ideas on racial superiority, eugenics and inferior races, not his politics. He was influenced by Nietzsche, Sanger, Darwin etc. with regards to superior races and survival of the fittest. Perhaps you are familiar with the term survival of the fittest? Darwinism was his justification for genocide. He was making way for the “Dominant Species”, the “white race”. This is an undeniable fact of history. No amount of sophistry on your part can change the facts of history.

Mel

 

[Oolon_Colluphid]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

The full name itself is racist.

Don’t be bloody ridiculous. Races are populations, and that’s exactly what evolution is about.

The “favoured races” are references to human beings.

Rather than call you a liar, I’ll ask you to substantiate that by quoting from this book. Right now.

If you cannot find any thing on racial development in Darwin then I am wondering if you actually have read his stuff.

If you can find anything on racism in Darwin then I am wondering which text you’re using.

As for Hitler and National Socialism, common sense would have made it clear that I was referring to his ideas on racial superiority, eugenics and inferior races, not his politics. He was influenced by Nietzsche, Sanger, Darwin etc. with regards to superior races and survival of the fittest.

That is Hitler’s problem, not evolutionary biology’s.

Perhaps you are familiar with the term survival of the fittest?

Do you know who coined it?

Darwinism was his justification for genocide. He was making way for the “Dominant Species”, the “white race”. This is an undeniable fact of history. No amount of sophistry on your part can change the facts of history.

And no amount of sophistry and ignorant blather from you can change the facts of biology, which, and only which, evolution relates to. I don’t give a flying ferret what people have extrapolated from Darwin. Come to that, it would matter not the slightest if Darwin himself was a necrophilic pederast member of the BNP with a penchant for mass murder. His idea was right.

 

[Melchior]

Jillian:

Care to substantiate this, or does your definition of Christian charity involve disparaging people baselessly?

I’m willing to bet that you’ve never actually read OOS yourself, have you, Melchior? You’re just basing your opinion on what other people have told you about it. If you have read it, would you mind telling us specifically what portion of it you find to be racist?

How about it? Care to put your money where your mouth is? I’ll wager a pizza and movie tickets on you never having read Origin of Species. What do you say?

Jillian,

I want to see Spider-Man 2 and I really like Dominic’s Pizza in downtown Boston.

How about the very title of the book:

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Here is a ‘good’ one from Darwin’s The Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ? will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Would you like more? Perhaps some Huxley quotes?

Mel

 

[Magnanimity]

Jillian:

Really? There are two theories here? As far as I can tell so far, there’s only one theory, and a whole lot of gratutitous handwaving on the other part.

If there really are two competing theories here, how come I can state what the theory of evolution entails in fifty words or less, while you cannot offer us the same for your “theory” of ID?

First, this doesn’t address the criticism. It sidesteps it. Presumably then, you have no reply to the criticism. Unless it’s the rather outrageous assertion that no one believed anything about origins or change in species prior to Darwin.

Second, because I have not thought through explicitly exactly what I think is the best and/or most successful formulation of ID, has nothing to do with rejecting evolution. They are wholly unrelated issues, unless you’d care to demonstrate why one must have settled on a view before he can reject another view. Again, one must not be a pantheist (just to use an arbitrary example) before he can reject theism. Theism may be objectionable because it fails on its own terms, irrespective of any alternatives. This is precisely the situation with evolution. It fails on its own.

And if you are in such a hurry for an ID explanation, I simply refer you to the numerous recent writings of that group, including, but not limited to, Dembski, Behe, Johnson, Meyer, etc.

 

[Magnanimity]

Vindex Urvogel:

Either way, however, you have not presented any grounds on which we should take seriously the apparent claim that it is not possible, or very difficult, to falsify the hypothesis offered in my earlier posts about the braincase morphology of Troodon formosus.

Naturally, since no effort was made on my part to present such a falsification. Rather, questions were asked to which you have largely not replied. Without replies to the questions, I see no way of going forth with this particular aspect of the discussion.

It is easy to present arcane material with which the non-specialist has almost always had no interaction. And since I am a non-specialist, I cannot technically interact with the material you present. If, however, you wish to engage the questions I have raised, it seems to me that a fruitful discussion could ensue.