Rat the size of a car

[John81]

In her book "Godless", Ann Coulter does an effective job of factually thrashing the false theory of evolution.

[Guest Guest]

Rightly or wrongly, evolutionary theory has been part of the scientific consensus/paradigm in the natural sciences for over 100 years, so why would you be surprised to read about palaeontologists writing up their findings from an evolutionary perspective? When they write it up in a paper, they will clearly cite the previous research that they are building on, and the theories that they will be using to draw their conclusions. Anyone is free to use the same findings and write a different paper using different theories, so what's the problem?

It's a bit like someone walking into a church and saying, "it's funny how that Pastor is taking the Biblical perspective by default." In a church, we would expect a Pastor to be bringing his belief in the Bible to the sermon, and in a modern paleontology research institute, we would expect the researchers to be building on the mainstream theory most of the time- which at the moment is evolutionary theory.

The main difference is the fact that in Church, we are teaching the Bible which we believe to be true because of the revelation of the Holy Spirit. It's a supernatural thing, not natural. What I have a problem with is evolution "theory" being taught as SCIENCE. Science is demonstrable, provable facts. Evolution is supposition, hope and faith. There is absolutely no logical reason for any of what evolution teaches to be true. There is no evidence for the inter-kind evolving of animals that evolution requires.

Furthermore, supposition about the age, size and structure of the universe as held by modern scientists is absolute nonsense, being fabricated from a preconceived evolutionary standpoint. "Dark matter," "black holes," and star formation are but a few hopes and beliefs that Bible-rejecting astronomers have created to support their crack-pot nonsense of evolution. We have never, ever seen a star form, and there is no evidence that honestly interpreted demands an old universe.

I mean the garbage being taught is evolution, but the fact is that evolution teaches that higher "animals" evolve from lower ones. Effectively this means that African human ancestors (had they actually existed anywhere but in the minds of Godless evolutionists) were inferior. If you follow the logic through, we supposedly evolved from monkeys, a lower life form, and they're still around, so if black African ancestors were further down the evolutionary chain, then it stands to reason that people of African descent are leftovers from the natural selection process and are therefore inferior life forms. Ditto Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and the rest.

Evolution is an inherently racist system.

*Edit to clarify: I didn't mean to sound like racism is still taught in schools, just (racist) evolution

[Alimantado]

I mean the garbage being taught is evolution' date=' but the fact is that evolution teaches that higher "animals" evolve from lower ones. Effectively this means that African human ancestors (had they actually existed anywhere but in the minds of Godless evolutionists) were inferior. If you follow the logic through, we supposedly evolved from monkeys, a lower life form, and they're still around, so if black African ancestors were further down the evolutionary chain, then it stands to reason that people of African descent are leftovers from the natural selection process and are therefore inferior life forms. Ditto Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and the rest. Evolution is an inherently racist system. [/quote']
Many thanks for clarifying the school education issue. With regard to racism, in essence evolution proposes that all humans, including both white Westerners and black Africans, came from ancestors who happened to live in Africa and therefore were probably also black. Since then, humans have spread to lots of continents and skin pigmentation has in some areas changed to suit local climate. It doesn't say that white Westerners are higher up the evolutionary chain because their skin went white when they moved North. More diverse climates occupied- more adaptive variation in skin pigmentation, is the claim made by evolution, and I don't see what's racist about this claim. No popular evolution theory says that the people still in Africa now are anyone's less-evolved ancestors; though this was claimed many years ago.

Furthermore, evolution doesn't claim that humans evolved from modern monkeys. It claims that both humans and monkeys had a common primate ancestor. Whether or not that ancestor looked more like a monkey or a human is immaterial, because the theory doesn't claim that humans are in any way 'superior' to monkeys or indeed any other species of animal. As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, a species of fish is better adapted to fit its niche than a human, and is not a 'lower life form'.

I can see how evolution could be considered racist if it said what you say it claims, but I don't think it does say that.

[Guest Guest]

:goodpost:

Alimantado: That is an excellent summary of the premise underlining the theory. I believe that if people would do a little independent research and use their God given common sense, they could see that evolution can't be explained away as simply as "i didn't come from no monkey." And like you, I don't necessarily see enough evidence to substantiate the theory as it is put forth today. However, has anyone ever considered that evolution is the means by which God created humans? I know this has been suggested before and I haven't done any research concerning it so I really don't have an opinion regarding it. What does everyone else think? Is it possible? Can it be reconciled with the jewish understanding of creation?

[Guest Guest]

However' date=' has anyone ever considered that evolution is the means by which God created humans? I know this has been suggested before and I haven't done any research concerning it so I really don't have an opinion regarding it. What does everyone else think? Is it possible? Can it be reconciled with the jewish understanding of creation?[/quote']

This comes from rejecting God's word as the Absolute Authority. When we allow modern criticism to enter the picture, the entire Bible becomes subject to man's opinion. The Bible says more than three times (I can think of that many off the top of my head) that God created in SIX DAYS the heavens and the earth and all that in them is. This creation was completed in SIX days, a complete, mature creation. Jesus even quoted the passage in Exodus; therefore, if God used evolution, then Christ is a liar, or God's word is wrong, and if that's the case, then we have absolutely no foundation for our faith.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable; we believe it because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly unthinkable."

Interesting, no?

[Guest Guest]

The Bible says more than three times (I can think of that many off the top of my head) that God created in SIX DAYS the heavens and the earth and all that in them is. This creation was completed in SIX days' date=' a complete, mature creation. [/quote']

But is it not possible that SIX DAYS to God is not the same as we understand six days to mean? It's my understanding that the Jewish people have never taken the story of creation literally. And what little familiarity I have with Jewish literature suggest that metaphor and symbalism was the norm of the time when Genisis was written. I myself have no opinion one way or another. To me, it doesn't matter how long or how God did it, just that he in fact did do it. I don't believe that creation was some accident, so please don't let me come across that way.

[bzmomo7]

When in the Bible is a "day" not a literal day? (and just for reference, what Bible translation(s) do you use?)

[Guest Guest]

From a Biblical viewpoint, excluding all outside sources of information, God said He did it in six days, and though "day" is very clear in English, you can look up the Hebrew word for it if you'd like. I guarantee you it means one day. So if you want to add to scripture, that's fine; just don't think I'm going to contemplate it for a second.

[Guest Guest]

I am not aware of any time when a day does not mean an actual 24 hour day in the bible. However, other parts of the bible are not talking about what God did and what rules apply to him. I believe it is a legitimate possiblity that the author of Genesis used a human understanding of time to describe how God did things. Luckily God is not limited by human understanding of him. I am not saying that all of creation did not come about in six days, just that it is possible that God did it in a way we can't understand and the six day creation story is just our best attempt at understanding.

Currently I am using the NRSV, but in the past I used the KJV. I really like using the NRSV because it alerts you to and states the differences in the ancient manuscripts. For example, if the KJV says, "He did" and some ancient manuscripts said "They did" in the same verse, it will provide a footnote pointing out this difference.

[bzmomo7]

From a Biblical viewpoint' date=' excluding all outside sources of information, God said He did it in six days, and though "day" is very clear in English, you can look up the Hebrew word for it if you'd like. I guarantee you it means one day. So if you want to add to scripture, that's fine; just don't think I'm going to contemplate it for a second.[/quote']

I was just wondering, MC, if he could provide us even one example of it. :lol When God said six days of creation, He meant it. Period. Can someone please explain to me why we are having this foundational discussion, anyway? A person either believes God's Word, or they don't.......I think I'm done with this discussion, just because I don't see how it can lead to anything productive from here. (If we get further into it and someone asserts that the Bible doesn't mean what it actually says, well I'm just gonna get hoppin' mad. )

[bzmomo7]

I am not aware of any time when a day does not mean an actual 24 hour day in the bible. However, other parts of the bible are not talking about what God did and what rules apply to him. I believe it is a legitimate possiblity that the author of Genesis used a human understanding of time to describe how God did things. Luckily God is not limited by human understanding of him. I am not saying that all of creation did not come about in six days, just that it is possible that God did it in a way we can't understand and the six day creation story is just our best attempt at understanding.

Currently I am using the NRSV, but in the past I used the KJV. I really like using the NRSV because it alerts you to and states the differences in the ancient manuscripts. For example, if the KJV says, "He did" and some ancient manuscripts said "They did" in the same verse, it will provide a footnote pointing out this difference.

Please, go get the right Bible......if you're in doubt, see the blue box at the top of the page that Brother Matt so graciously put there. Then, go and research the manuscript debate. God preserved His Word!!

[Guest Guest]

The NRSV is sthe KJV, but with footnotes alerting you to the differences in the ancient manuscripts used in compiling the KJV.

[Guest Guest]

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

That's not even to mention the actual Creation account. It's pretty obvious.

[Alimantado]

Can someone please explain to me why we are having this foundational discussion' date=' anyway? [/quote']
Easy. You invited yourself onto this thread, and started posting. If you don't like what is being discussed, just don't post next time- that approach has the added bonus of not wasting the time of those who take time to respond to your points.

And to think I was really enjoying the conversation you and me were having because it wasn't about creation vs evolution, or Biblical authority, which these chats so often turn into. Ah well.

[John81]

Go to your library or order a copy of Ann Coulter's "Godless" and read the excellent section dealing with evolution. It's filled with fun facts and great insights into the topic.