Creationists, Just How Strong IS Your Belief?

[Subduction Zone]

My parents are old-school Baptists and have attended a Baptist church since before I was born. Years ago their pastor left (I think he retired) and the Baptist organization started sending in temporary pastors on a trial basis. One would come in, serve as pastor for about a month, and then the elders would meet and decide if they wanted to keep him.

During that time I was talking to my mom over the phone and she started telling me about how one of these temporary pastors had a degree in biology and was a "Darwinist" (her words). He actually spent one Sunday preaching that evolution was not contrary to scripture and that good honest Christians should never fear whatever reality science uncovers....after all he said, science is one of God's gifts.

My mom was quite excited for me to meet him, but it never happened, mostly because I live on the other side of the country. But it was also because at the end of the month, the elders voted to not keep him on and they specifically cited his being an "evolutionist" as the main reason.

If reality threatens one's beliefs then one is simply admitting that one's beliefs are wrong. It is a shame that your mother's church has such a weak faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, but specification does not equal the evolution.
Speciation, Yes; Evolution, No

I know that the origin of life is not technically a part of the theory of evolution, but many who accept evolution have this as their foundational assumption. and many Christians seem to lump it in there, too.

I do think God set evolution in motion within "kinds" of animals and plants, so I don't think God individually created 5,000+ species of grasshoppers, 40,000 species of bugs, and 53,000 to 110,000 species of mushrooms. The Bible describes God creating “kinds” that reproduce within their kind. This is a group that can reproduce with one another. I believe God put a huge amount of variety into the DNA of each kind so they could diversify and fill the earth. This is what we observe; kinds reproduce their own kind.

You do realize that to work at Answers in Genesis one must swear not to use the scientific method, don't you? And if there was some "created kind" then you someone on your side should be able to take Aron Ra's phylogentic challenge. To date no creationist has:

By the way, evolution to the point where two groups cannot "reproduce within their kind" has been observed. In fact with ring species we can see it in action.[/B]

 

[InChrist]

Whatever a "kind" may be.

In any event, would you say that "kinds" reproduce
exactly after their own?

Or, put in normal English of the 21st century,
are offspring identical to their parents?

I did not sat "exactly". I believe God put a huge amount of variety into the DNA of each kind so they could diversify and fill the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not sat "exactly". I believe God put a huge amount of variety into the DNA of each kind so they could diversify and fill the earth.

But that is not the way that evolution works. Worse, there is no evidence that supports this. Hand waving is not convincing.

 

[InChrist]

You do realize that to work at Answers in Genesis one must swear not to use the scientific method, don't you?

Show me where AIG requires someone to swear not to use the scientific method, before I move on to the video.

 

[InChrist]

But that is not the way that evolution works. Worse, there is no evidence that supports this. Hand waving is not convincing.

There are huskies, German Shepherds, terriers, labs, collies, poodles, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., etc, etc. A lot of variation and diversity in the dog kind.

 

[Audie]

I did not sat "exactly". I believe God put a huge amount of variety into the DNA of each kind so they could diversify and fill the earth.

So you did. Just taking step one here.

"Variety in the DNA?" This is an unknown-to-science concept.

Nobody seems able to say what a "Kind"
is, of course.

Perhaps you could offer an opinion, as to whether it corresponds to kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus?

But let us suppose it is so, that each "Kind" goes on to "diversify".

Is there a limit, set by god, as to how far each kind can change as it diversifies? What is that limit, how does it operate? This is also unknown to science.

(oh, and just as an aside, isnt it odd that "He" created domestic animals
at the same time as their wild ancestors? )

( the bible does not say "diversify" btw.)

 

[Audie]

There are huskies, German Shepherds, terriers, labs, collies, poodles, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., etc, etc. A lot of variation and diversity in the dog kind.

Could you identify from the fossil record what creature was the wild ancestor of all these sub-kinds of canids?

 

[Skwim]

Okay, but specification does not equal the evolution.

Considering that evolution is "a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." Just how do propose speciation (The process in which new genetically distinct species arise) works without it?

Speciation, Yes; Evolution, No

Sorry, but I've found that any source using "kinds" to make it's points is not worth bothering with.

I know that the origin of life is not technically a part of the theory of evolution,

Good for you. A lot of creationists don't.

but many who accept evolution have this as their foundational assumption. and many Christians seem to lump it in there, too.

You're quite right about the many and Christians.

I do think God set evolution in motion within "kinds" of animals and plants, so I don't think God individually created 5,000+ species of grasshoppers, 40,000 species of bugs, and 53,000 to 110,000 species of mushrooms. The Bible describes God creating “kinds” that reproduce within their kind. This is a group that can reproduce with one another. I believe God put a huge amount of variety into the DNA of each kind so they could diversify and fill the earth. This is what we observe; kinds reproduce their own kind.

Then you do believe in evolution: species evolving from other species. Good for you.

Sorry, but in as much as "kind" has never been adequately defined I don't discuss it.

.

 

[Skwim]

There are huskies, German Shepherds, terriers, labs, collies, poodles, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., etc, etc. A lot of variation and diversity in the dog kind.

Let me ask you, is there then a wolf kind that's different from the dog kind?

.

 

[InChrist]

Let me ask you, is there then a wolf kind that's different from the dog kind?

.

No, dog and wolf are the same "kind".
I don't really have the time or interest to pursue an ongoing evolution/creation debate. I've and these long drawn out discussions before and they are endless. I know what I believe and I assume you do, too. So I am happy to leave it at that. I only posted in this thread to respond to your first question in regard to whether or not I would suddenly believe in evolution because some creationist teacher or pastor changed their mind.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Neither evolution, nor creation are true. I believe in beginningless eternity. Since there are only so many shapes and colors, if the universe has always existed rebirth is a worse case scenario.

 

[Axe Elf]

Most preachers have had their errors explained to them. They are lying. And I see that you do not understand the Ninth Commandment either. There is nothing about it that limits it to Christians testifying about Christians. Lastly there was no hijacking. Creationism is a subject of this thread. Perhaps you merely have a hard time following a conversation. It is wise not to make claims about others, especially those that you cannot support if you claim to be a Christian. Once again, remember the Ninth Commandment.

LOL You're such a hoot.

I never said anything about the Ninth (or Eighth, depending on whose list you use) Commandment--that was you--or about its application to Xians testifying about Xians--again, you. Putting words in my mouth and then arguing with them isn't a real discussion.

Creationism is indeed a subject of this thread--but you said nothing about creationism in your post, you merely asserted that a false statement could be a violation of the Ninth Commandment. You didn't even place it in the context of statements about creationism, rather in the context of Xians testifying against other Xians. Ergo, you hijacked the thread to have a petty little argument--with yourself, as it turned out.

But perhaps you merely have a hard time following a conversation. It is wise not to make claims about others, especially those that you cannot support.

Now you have had your errors explained to you, so if you continue to repeat them as if they were not errors, you are lying (by your own logic concerning the preachers). You can argue all you like, but you'll have to do it without me, though (and that hasn't stopped you yet); there are enough people with legitimate concerns here to keep me busy, without having to respond to peripheral nonsense.

 

[Axe Elf]

Any thoughts on the problem with willful ignorance and negligence?

We note that Christians will say that once I've heard the gospel, its my own fault if I am not saved.

Maybe if I threw rocks at missionaries if they approached, held my hands over my ears etc, and otherwise avoided hearing the word, would that help out in the end, in your estimation?

I don't want to go too far afield from the topic, after just spanking Subduction Zone for his own hijacking efforts, so let me limit my response to willful ignorance and negligence regarding creationist beliefs (as I limited my response about lying to lying about creationist beliefs).

It's kind of tough to judge what is "willful" ignorance, because it's more than just choosing to remain ignorant, when it comes to religious beliefs; sometimes it boils down to just choosing a different set of axioms. If your belief system is based on the idea that science is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data would indeed be willfully ignorant. If your belief system is based on the idea that the Word of God is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data when it is in conflict with the Bible is a reasonable (if not rational) thing to do. The "willful" choice here is not to remain ignorant, but to choose an alternative source of knowledge, to choose a mystical explanation over a physical one.

Negligence would be just not caring enough to look into the matter one way or another--and I would hope that anyone who suffers from a lack of knowledge due to negligence would at least recognize that fact and not try to speak authoritatively on something they know they don't know anything about.

(Parenthetically, I believe that if you are destined for salvation, God will reveal Himself to you at some point--hands over your ears notwithstanding--and if you are destined for destruction, He probably won't.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me where AIG requires someone to swear not to use the scientific method, before I move on to the video.

No problem, they do so in their Statement of Faith:

Statement of Faith

In fact they make it abundantly clear here:

"

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In the sciences one cannot call the evidence wrong. One follows the evidence using the scientific method. One does not make assumptions ahead of time. By swearing to do this they are swearing not to use the scientific method. A "scientist" cannot work there without swearing to that oath.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are huskies, German Shepherds, terriers, labs, collies, poodles, wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc., etc, etc. A lot of variation and diversity in the dog kind.

So what? There was over 10,000 years of selective breeding. And that variation is still minuscule compared to what we observe in nature.

By the way, you should realize that there is no "change of kind" in evolution. That is a creationist strawman. Apes are not another "kind" from man. Man still is an ape. You are still an ape. but then I am too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't want to go too far afield from the topic, after just spanking Subduction Zone for his own hijacking efforts, so let me limit my response to willful ignorance and negligence regarding creationist beliefs (as I limited my response about lying to lying about creationist beliefs).

It's kind of tough to judge what is "willful" ignorance, because it's more than just choosing to remain ignorant, when it comes to religious beliefs; sometimes it boils down to just choosing a different set of axioms. If your belief system is based on the idea that science is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data would indeed be willfully ignorant. If your belief system is based on the idea that the Word of God is the best way to understand the truth of the universe, then ignoring scientific data when it is in conflict with the Bible is a reasonable (if not rational) thing to do. The "willful" choice here is not to remain ignorant, but to choose an alternative source of knowledge, to choose a mystical explanation over a physical one.

Negligence would be just not caring enough to look into the matter one way or another--and I would hope that anyone who suffers from a lack of knowledge due to negligence would at least recognize that fact and not try to speak authoritatively on something they know they don't know anything about.

(Parenthetically, I believe that if you are destined for salvation, God will reveal Himself to you at some point--hands over your ears notwithstanding--and if you are destined for destruction, He probably won't.)

Please, you can't spank someone for what they did not do. You simply could not follow the conversation.

Also you do not realize that a preacher that denies evolution is lying if corrected and using modern technology. One can't pick and choose and be honest.

If your error is explained to you and you ignore the explanation, and put up a flimsy defense as you have suggested, they are still lying when they ignore the correction and repeat their error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL You're such a hoot.

I never said anything about the Ninth (or Eighth, depending on whose list you use) Commandment--that was you--or about its application to Xians testifying about Xians--again, you. Putting words in my mouth and then arguing with them isn't a real discussion.

What was the purpose of the bogus claim if that was not what you were referring to? Not being able to express oneself clearly quite often accompanies poor reading comprehension. You might want to watch that.

Creationism is indeed a subject of this thread--but you said nothing about creationism in your post, you merely asserted that a false statement could be a violation of the Ninth Commandment. You didn't even place it in the context of statements about creationism, rather in the context of Xians testifying against other Xians. Ergo, you hijacked the thread to have a petty little argument--with yourself, as it turned out.

It was still within the subject of the thread. As I already pointed out you were not able to follow the conversation. And there was no need. You are blaming me for your inability to follow a conversation. Perhaps you made the error of jumping into the middle of the conversation instead of following it to its roots. Either way your post was inexcusable.

But perhaps you merely have a hard time following a conversation. It is wise not to make claims about others, especially those that you cannot support.

Massive projection Again, not wise.

Now you have had your errors explained to you, so if you continue to repeat them as if they were not errors, you are lying (by your own logic concerning the preachers). You can argue all you like, but you'll have to do it without me, though (and that hasn't stopped you yet); there are enough people with legitimate concerns here to keep me busy, without having to respond to peripheral nonsense.

All you have done is to make your errors even more evident. And no, just because you made terrible errors does not mean that I am lying. You need to work on your logic skills as well.

Don't worry, I will still gladly correct your errors for you.

 

[Axe Elf]

Please, you can't spank someone for what they did not do.

Don't be silly; my dad spanked me for stuff I didn't do all the time...

I'll spank whoever I want, for whatever I want, whenever I want. You'll come to learn this about me.

If your error is explained to you and you ignore the explanation, and put up a flimsy defense as you have suggested, they are still lying when they ignore the correction and repeat their error.

That is true if and only if they believe that the correction was correct and that their original belief was in error, but they still state the belief as if they believed it to be true. In that case, they are lying. If, however, they still believe that the belief is true and that the correction was in error, then they are still not lying when they declare their belief to be true, even if their belief is indeed false.

 

[Axe Elf]

What was the purpose of the bogus claim if that was not what you were referring to? Not being able to express oneself clearly quite often accompanies poor reading comprehension. You might want to watch that.

It was still within the subject of the thread. As I already pointed out you were not able to follow the conversation. And there was no need. You are blaming me for your inability to follow a conversation. Perhaps you made the error of jumping into the middle of the conversation instead of following it to its roots. Either way your post was inexcusable.

Massive projection Again, not wise.

All you have done is to make your errors even more evident. And no, just because you made terrible errors does not mean that I am lying. You need to work on your logic skills as well.

Don't worry, I will still gladly correct your errors for you.

Come at me when you have a rational, on-topic argument, and not just a bunch of unfounded insults.