Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism

last SG · 2012-04-16T17:31:56+00:00

Uh huh, irrelevant point, if you xtians wouldnt see the light, dont go blame on atheistsThats like blaming the neighbours for the poo i make in my own house...

BroInChrist SG

I am starting this thread on the above topic since there does not seem to be a thread on this, at least not one that is being kept alive. Anyway, my first post on this thread is from an unlikely source.

http://discovermagazine.com/photos/07-animals-harnessed-nanotechnology

I think all the above creatures show remarkable evidence of design features that enable them to do what they do. And this points to an intelligent designer, God.

laffin123 SG

here is a interesting lecture by Kent Hovind on Age Of The Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZR022_GbzU&feature=related

Quite entertaining. It a long clip, if you don't have time, view the first 5 min at least. It keep me going till the whole 58 min.

BroInChrist SG

here is a interesting lecture by Kent Hovind on Age Of The Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZR022_GbzU&feature=related

Quite entertaining. It a long clip, if you don't have time, view the first 5 min at least. It keep me going till the whole 58 min.

So what do you think of the video? And what is your view on the topic?

laffin123 SG

I find the video highly entertaining; I am atheist; you may find me biased. But let's go point by point of the video if you are keen to debate on.

At 5:00 video mark, Hovind said that Adam's son married their sisters. And presumably, the next generation also do likewise or cousin inbreeding. Such consanguineous inbreeding causes genetic disorder. What will happen to this people ? Very interesting.

Let's go next point in video if you are not comfortable with this.

BroInChrist SG

I find the video highly entertaining; I am atheist; you may find me biased. But let's go point by point of the video if you are keen to debate on.

Let's go next point in video if you are not comfortable with this.

Everyone is biased, whether you are a theist or an atheist. There is simply no such thing as a neutral person. What's important is that we have the correct bias. So it boils down to which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

I am certainly keen to take on your debate offer, but I am concerned about the productivity of discussing "problem Bible passages" with an atheist who does not share the same worldview as a Christian. The only way that this can be productive is that the atheist, for the sake of argument, be willing to step into the worldview of the Christian and see the answers from a Biblical perspective. Otherwise the atheist would simply be predisposed to dismiss the answers. Would you be willing to do that?

Also, the topic is whether creationism is true (i.e. there is a Creator-God) or whether evolutionism is true (i.e. chance is the "creator", even though chance is not a thing or being) and I think we should first try to focus on that level rather than dive into these so-called Bible difficulties which is really a very wide topic. In short, I think we ought to address the issue whether those features seen in those creatures in Post #1 is best explained by intelligence or by chance.

Lest you think there is no answer at all to your question or that I am trying to evade, your question is answered by theologican Charles Ryrie:

Though by many inerrantists the question of where Cain got his wife would not be considered a problem at all, this question is often used by those who try to demonstrate that the Bible is unreliable in what it claims. How could it claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who had two sons, one of whom murdered the other, and yet who produced a large race of people? Clearly, the Bible does teach that Adam and Eve were the first created human beings. The Lord affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9. The genealogy of Christ is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Jude 14 identifies Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This could hardly mean the seventh from “mankind,” an interpretation that would be necessary if Adam were not an individual as some claim. Clearly, Cain murdered Abel and yet many people were born. Where did Cain get his wife?

We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.

Many, many generations later, by the time of Moses, incest was then prohibited in the Mosaic laws undoubtedly for two reasons: first, such mutations that caused deformity had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, and second, it was forbidden because of the licentious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites and as a general protection against such in society. It should also be noted that in addition to the Bible most other legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives.

But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?

I think the last part of the answer is the counter-punch to the atheist's objection because it shows that the atheist (who must be an evolutionist) also have an "incest problem". So how do you answer that?

despondent SG

i think one problem non-creationists struggle wif is the belief tat negative mutation occurred due to the original sin of Adam...how Adam's sin penetrated into the whole of mankind and affect the entire DNA and cause the mutation of our cells..not forgetting cancerous cells mutated from good cells and it was only possible because Adam fell...its difficult to understand how Adam's fall can lead to such genetic disorder...also, we live in a society where we are tot tat we are responsible for our own choices and actions...so some may qn what Adam's choice to sin against God has to do wif us when we were not the ones who made tat choice? to them it seems God is being unfair to judge in this way...

BIC, i am still a christian...i am putting on the mindset of an atheist and bringing this thread deeper...i may not be a very good ''atheist'' but this is wad i can tink of from their perspective...

BroInChrist SG

BIC, i am still a christian...i am putting on the mindset of an atheist and bringing this thread deeper...i may not be a very good ''atheist'' but this is wad i can tink of from their perspective...

An atheist believes that matter is all there is, which is why he cannot see how something done in the spiritual realm can affect the physical realm. But God is Spirit, and He spoke the material universe into existence. But even the most hardcore atheist will concede that in this world there are material and immaterial things, and the immaterial can affect the material. For example, depression or stress can lead to sickness.

The saying that "no man is an island" is true. While we are held accountable for our own actions, our actions affect not just us but others as well. So when Adam fell, we fell in him, as did all creation. And because we are all in Adam, we inherit his sin nature as well. It's nothing to do with fairness or unfairness at all. We are all born into existing conditions. The solution is not to whine about the past, but to make conscious decisions that can make a difference in our future.

Thanks for trying to don the atheist's hat. Don't worry I know you did not abandon the faith.

despondent SG

the qn is to a self-oriented person who doesnt see life thru the christian perspective, he will view fairness base on self. in other words, if Adam sinned, Adam should bear his own consequences...if we sin, we shld bear our own consequences...but in the case of christianity, we are sinful cos of Adam sin and we are destined for hell(unless we repent) not cos we committedour own sins but cos of Adam's original sin...to atheist, i dun tink this is considered fair...

BroInChrist SG

Which is why the atheist need to get rid of that strawman and realise that he is NOT being judged for Adam's sin. He is being judged for his own sins. And that the reason why he sins is because he is a sinner. His spirit is dead in Adam but it can be made alive in Christ.

despondent SG

but are u sure we are not inheritants of Adam's sin? the fact tat Adam's sin caused us to be born wif a sin nature alredi doesnt make God seem like a fair God...to them we shld all be born sinless and then judged for our own sins...u see the diff?

BroInChrist SG

The doctrine of Original Sin is that it was Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden which brought in death into the world. The entire creation groans as a result of that one act of rebellion. Because we are all descended from Adam, we inherit his nature, both physical and spiritual. Like I said, there is really nothing fair or unfair about this. Besides, the issue isn't whether we are born sinless, but that none of us can claim moral perfection.

And I would also like to add that an atheist has no basis to call something fair or unfair, to do so would be to presuppose some objective standard of judgement which atheism does not have. So unless the atheist wishes to affirm the Biblical worldview or admits that he needs the Biblical worldview, he really shouldn't be complaining.

despondent SG

honestly, i dun tink atheists claim to be morally perfect...they are approaching more from the pt if 1) there is such a thing as moral perfection, 2) who can prove there is a God out there who is morally perfect, 3) why must there be moral perfection? just let the world be what it is...

for the agnostics, moral perfection dun matter at all cos life is hard enuff alredi...also, its not conclusive UNIVERSALLY what the moral standards shld be...

BroInChrist SG

for the agnostics, moral perfection dun matter at all cos life is hard enuff alredi...also, its not conclusive UNIVERSALLY what the moral standards shld be...

But even not claiming to be morally perfect presupposes the existence of objective moral values. In fact, a consistent atheist ought not make any moral judgements at all since atheism supplies no such basis. But the reality is that atheists do not live by their creed at all, for they keep making moral judgements all the time. They live as though there is right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, and these are things that make sense within theism but not within atheism.

laffin123 SG

Lest you think there is no answer at all to your question or that I am trying to evade, your question is answered by theologican Charles Ryrie:

Ryrie figured out that the power of god allows the Adam's family to immune from genetic disorder. This sound reasonble if I believe the power of god. What is your views on DNA ? I am convinced that the science has produced logical evidence of supporting human and some animal species sharing the same ancestral roots. What is your view ?

I have been travelling around the world quite a bit over the years. This is my observation. Most hotel has a bible in theroom. I always have a habit of flipping it. Recently, I observed that the new bible version do not have the book of genesis. In the past, there is genesis in bible as a starter. I think this is the better stop gap measure than Charles Ryrie's explanation. Omitting the troublesome book of Genesis is easier method. The new comers of christ will have less confusion in the future.

In your last question, atheist has incest problem. I think you are referring to the context of primitive organism. I agree. Even today, we are see animals inter-breeding. Example: orangutan in our zoo. I read from newspaper, son and mother together give birth to next generation. They are not atheist. They are animals. Atheist are people. It is because of this incest behavior in animals that make it harder of animal to develop in more superior species. Fortunately, the human species did better than them and evolve into a more stronger and intelligent state. You have any objective to what I say ?

laffin123 SG

BIC, in other thread I read about your view of atheist not having moral judgement. Now, I still reading it here. I am most disturbed by your arrogance. In my view, you may not be a good character to debate with.

BroInChrist SG

If that is your impression then you failed to read properly what I wrote. I said that atheists cannot account for moral values, not that atheists have no morals. Atheists BORROW the morality from theism but deny the source of those values. Why would you accuse me of arrogance simply because I point that out correctly? Mind you, atheists usually speak condescendingly about the intelligence of religious people and rave about their own intellectual superiority in being free from any God-idea compared to the deluded religious folk. How is that not arrogance?

BroInChrist SG

Ryrie said nothing about God's power protecting genetic disorder. What he wrote was that the original creation was perfect and marriage between siblings would have no problem. Even after the fall, the mutation of genes as a result of the Fall will take place over time so initially it would still have been OK until Moses' time.

DNA is INFORMATION. Information presupposes intelligence. That's my view. The belief that humans and animals share common ancestry is just that, a BELIEF. Science does not prove that at all. It is better explained as common design since there is a common designer, GOD.

I have no idea why the Bible in the hotels would remove Genesis. But your suggestion that removing Genesis would solve the problem is not a solution at all. Starting the Bible from Leviticus makes as much sense as watching Twilight from the second movie.

Lastly, you have not addressed the issue of incest of humans according to evolution at all. You have sidestepped it by talking about other animals.

laffin123 SG

In my previous thread, please read carefully. I said "..Fortunately, the human species did better than them and evolve into a more stronger and intelligent state...". This was in the context of human incest. I agree that early ancestors would have incest relationship, no doubt. Fortunately, human race developed and there would be lesser and lesser incident of incest. Then, human evolves into stronger and cleverer state. How's that sound similarly to the Adam's family ? Quite close right. Notice that I do not need to use any supernatural help to support my case. In your case, it is very difficult for your to get out of the trickly situation, as the bible said only one originating family [Adam]. And do you worship Charles Ryrie as much as your god? Do you always provide soneone's quote [off the internet I guess] and take that as god's truth ?

In case you think I am digressing in future discussion, please alert me. I will not evade any question you ask me. Best is to bullet your question (1), (2)... then I will not miss them.

I did not look down on religious people in term of their intelligent. Did I do that in the past ? I don't think so, and probably never will in the future. I cannot said that on behalf of fellow atheists. People are different flavour and taste.

About the moral issue. I am not sure whether we share the same dictionary. Atheists have morals too. We deny the source of moral values ?!? This is getting complicated. We know what is right and what is wrong. We take care of the parents, and we bring up our kids into responsible people. We do not throw rubbish outside my neighbour's house. Are you saying the these moral values are actually given by god ? What if I have bad morals, is that god's test on me ? I got the good morals from my parents' good upbringing. Yes, you may say my parents are my god.

Quote "Starting the Bible from Leviticus makes as much sense as watching Twilight from the second movie." Please educate me on this remark. I am totally lost.

On Genesis removal, if you interested, I can tell you which the publisher and church. I will still be staying in this hotel until next friday.

I respect you view that science does not prove anything on common ascestral route of human and animals. I believe in this because of the evidence presented to us. It is much convincing than any religions can give.

Common design and common designer. These are evolving english terminologies. In the past, church never use these words. I can see that christian faith is keeping up with time to explain confusing things in the bible. [Genesis omission is another example] Good development in my opinion.

BroInChrist SG

In case you think I am digressing in future discussion, please alert me. I will not evade any question you ask me. Best is to bullet your question (1), (2)... then I will not miss them.

Quote "Starting the Bible from Leviticus makes as much sense as watching Twilight from the second movie." Please educate me on this remark. I am totally lost.

On Genesis removal, if you interested, I can tell you which the publisher and church. I will still be staying in this hotel until next friday.

1. You are begging the question here. You simply assert that humans evolve. But that is precisely the question being asked here: DID HUMANS EVOLVE? Or were they created? If creation has a so-called incest problem and thus ought to be rejected, then evolution also has its own incest problem which you acknowledged as well. And for you to claim that humans basically evolved better than the animals does not even explain WHY incest is morally wrong. In fact it commits the naturalistic fallacy. I know your explanation is empty of God-content, but I don't see how it is a BETTER explanation than mine, other than it having an anti-supernatural bias. And why talk about me worshipping Charles Ryrie? I no more worship him than you worship Charles Darwin. But then again, there are many atheist-evolutionists who apparently worship Darwin, thus there is Darwinism but I know of no Christian into Ryrism. And why talk about me quoting from others and taking it as God's truth? I no more does that than you quoting from scientists and evolutionists and taking it as infallible opinions. But then again, many atheists fall into scientism. So there you go.

2. I did not say you look down on religious folks. I am telling you that many atheists do, taking pride in their "enlightened stance" that they are being rational rather than the religious-minded folks who are superstitious. If that is no arrogance then what is?

3. You still missed my point. I said it again, I am not saying that atheists are immoral people or have no morals. I am saying that atheists CANNOT ACCOUNT for the existence of morals from within their atheism. Why do atheists know right or wrong, affirm good and evil? Not because their atheism provides them with the basis for making such declarations or discernment, but because they are BORROWING from the theistic worldview that affirms the existence of objective moral values and absolutes. Saying that you got your moral values from your parents does not explain the existence of moral values. You simply push back the question one generation back.

4. You can't remove Genesis from the Bible and expect the Bible to make sense just like you cannot start watching the "Twilight" movie trilogy from the second movie, or Harry Potter from the second book onwards. Genesis is the book of beginnings, it's the foundational book of the Bible. Whatever reasons the publisher of the Bible may have removed Genesis, I don't think they did it for the reasons you cited.

5. What exactly is the evidence for common ancestry? I suspect your evidence would involve a lot of circular arguments. If you cite homology as evidence that would only be begging the question.

6. The English language does change over time, but that does not mean truth changes over time. William Paley appealed to design too with his watchmaker analogy. Be careful of trying to deny truth by appealing to postmodernism.

Jacky Woo SG

Have I not said all along that xtians are extreme in their worldview, just look at the incoherent and nonsensical commentary this chap can churn out. doesnt it dawn on you not to waste your time and breathe on trying to talk sense to him