Go for the Heart

[Titan]

This is for both sides to consider:

Have any of you noticed that when a fossil comes out one of the two sides immediately jumps on it?

When the Nebraska man came out it was immediately used in the Scopes Monkey Trials to solidify the growing theory of evolution. It was later found that the fossil consisted of a single tooth belonging to an extinct species of pig.

When a creationist finds the complexity of an organ or organism they immediately publish a document stating how it shows that evolution is utterly false. Often these organs are proven to be less complex than previoulsy thought.

This is entitled "Go for the Heart" because rather than going for the mind and bringing evidence to the other side to be tested and critiqued, evolutionists and creationists immediately print it in order to cripple the other side and build up its own beliefs.

I know evolutionists will completely deny this (as will creationists) but both sides have questionable flaws that can not be left alone. In modern times we no longer want to find out the truth but to be proven correct and rub it in the face of those who oppose us so that we can end the courage that they once had.

Why can't we do this:
When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
When creationists find an amazingly complex organism why can't they show the evolutionary medical teams and collectively observe it once more, and repeat the process.

The conclusions will still be different but we won't have a bunch of brainwashed zombies anymore.

When I was a young-earth creationist we discussed the Scopes Monkey trials in History Class. It was inevitably brought up that I was a creationist and the teacher said "I don't know how you could have such an opinion" we had a debate (informal) and I crushed both the evolutionary classmates and the teacher because I was the only one who had researched both sides. The comment by the teacher made it harder for me to accept evolution and therein lies another problem.
We are prideful creatures, some would rather be ignorant than allow somoeone to gloat. So if we realize we have made a mistake we hide it and cover it up, dodging the issue and further increasing the pain.


I am really fed up with the debate. I will continue to debate but it is some of the people here who mock Creationists and some of my creationist friends who basically laugh at the phrase "evolution occurs" that annoy me. Why can't the debate be civilized and open-minded?

If someone wants to be an atheist than just come to terms with that and quit debating because nothing will convince you. If you want to be a Christian that stop arguing because we will get no where.

[Jose]

Perhaps you don't know how the evo theories actually work.

Evolution has NEVER been witnessed, predicted or repeated.

You can't even tell us how many mutations are required to produce these morphological changes you claim occur....your best answer, they happen and they add up....sounds good, but it also sounds like rhetoric.

Very amusing comeback! Maybe, since I am obviously ill-informed, you should tell me in some detail what the evo theories actually are. It would help us immeasurably to know what you refer to when you say it has never been witnessed or repeated. I'd guess it's not the same theory of evolution that has been witnessed and repeated. Admittedly, though, you are right that prediction of the future is impossible.

Genesis and 4 corners have nothing to do with each other...still I can't believe you actually posted the above considering I just spelled it out for you concerning the usage of 4 corners.

No picking and choosing involved Jose. The text tells you.

So, I can open up my bible, find a bit of text, and it will tell me which parts are literal and which parts are not? When I do that with Genesis, it tells me that it's allegorical. The text also tells me that the 4 corners bit is allegorical. The text tells me that pretty much the whole thing is allegorical. That's what the text tells me.

So, you see, it was very easy for me to post what I posted, even though you had spelled it out for me so clearly. You spelled out your personal interpretation. I've heard lots of other interpretations too, even though you and others each tell me that your particular interpretation is God's Truth. So, I'm left with a bit of a problem. The text is fairly cryptic on its own, and it appears that I can't rely on the help of others to interpret it for me because I keep hearing different interpretations.

Now, I don't quite see what you mean in saying that there's no picking and choosing. It seems to me, I kinda have to pick a verse to evaluate if I want to evaluate a verse. I can't just do it at random. Or, is that the best way to do it, in your opinion?

[YEC]

sigh.....Jose, the text with in the bible tells us that Genesis should be taken as literal.

Do I need to explain to you yet again that the bible in several places presents Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again how the early christian took Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again that the simple reading of Genesis presents a literal account and not allegorical?

Do I need to expalin to you again how it is the modern evo-minded that need re-write half the bible to force Genesis to be a simple allegory?

If so...say so and we'll start over just for your sake.

[rjw]

Gidday YEC,

I noticed this from you:-

Point pondered..then dismissed.

First off, I doubt it.

Once again, the weather can be predicted, modeled, witnessed etc.

EvolutionISM can't.

You still can't tell me how many mutations are needed to change a particular body part into another body part.

You still have not presented an intermediate fossil.

The list goes on...

In what sense is the weather witnessed, predicted and modeled whereas Evolution is not or cannot be?

You appear to argue that (macro) evolution cannot be observed and that counts against it. If so then what status do you give the theory:-

1) that the sun shines via fusion reactions at its centre (witnessed, predicted and modeled, etc?);
2) that rain forms when photons of light evaporate water molecules from a ponds surface which then move to the atmosphere where they condense around pre-existing nuclei (witnessed, modeled, predicted, etc?)
3) that you have human ancestors dating back 4,000 years (witnessed, predicted, modeled, etc.?)
4) that the AIDS virus formed from a micro evolutionary event some hundred or so years ago (witnessed, predicted, modeled etc.)
5) this list is endless of supposed scientific theories.

What status do you give our modern meteorological theories (e.g. the formation of rain) which run counter to the descriptions of Job where he clearly states that God is directly involved in the formation of various weather phenomena? Thus is God’s direct causation of meteorological phenomena the correct explanation or do you find a different interpretative framework for Job, compared to the framework you use to interpret Gen 1?

If you think that there are no intermediate fossils, then how do you define “intermediate”? Thus, do you reject fossils which are mosaics of supposed ancestor and descendant species as being “intermediate”? (You may do so and with good reason – so I am curious to know what you mean by “intermediate”!)


Regards, Roland

[YEC]

You make the assumption that mosaics equals evolution.

[Samurai Tailor]

You make the assumption that mosaics equals evolution.

I do not believe rjw makes that assumption. Instead, understand that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of organisms that have features common to more than one group (however large or arbitrarily designated said groups may be). Thus, the discovery of such intermediates validates evolutionary theory, all the more so considering no other extant theory predicts them.

No, the ad hoc-ery of creationism does not count as prediction.

[nikolayevich]

sigh.....Jose, the text with in the bible tells us that Genesis should be taken as literal.

Do I need to explain to you yet again that the bible in several places presents Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again how the early christian took Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again that the simple reading of Genesis presents a literal account and not allegorical?

Do I need to expalin to you again how it is the modern evo-minded that need re-write half the bible to force Genesis to be a simple allegory?

If so...say so and we'll start over just for your sake.

YEC, please refrain from condescension on this forum. As I read your posts I too often see you walking the line of ad hominem judgments, whether overtly or implicitly expressed. The hallmarks of great debaters usually include at least an attempted respect for their opponents which is seen by those present at the venue. Perhaps other debates allow rampant ad hom's, but it isn't the case here. Comments such as "Perhaps you don't know how the evo theories actually work" Are unwarranted (if not absurd in context).

From my experience with what is enjoyed here, wit is found when a debater incisively pins the nail on the head of an argument whether humorously or no. It is not pointing and wagging the proverbial finger at one's opponent.

Please note otseng's Tips on how to remain civil while debating.

[Jose]

sigh.....Jose, the text with in the bible tells us that Genesis should be taken as literal.

Do I need to explain to you yet again that the bible in several places presents Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again how the early christian took Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again that the simple reading of Genesis presents a literal account and not allegorical?

Do I need to expalin to you again how it is the modern evo-minded that need re-write half the bible to force Genesis to be a simple allegory?

If so...say so and we'll start over just for your sake.

Thank you for calling my attention to these matters. Unfortunately, it won't help if you explain these things to me, even if you talk slowly and use short words. You see, I hear different interpretations from other people, which forces me to conclude that I cannot rely upon the words of mere humans to come to an accurate reading of the bible. If I were to choose any one human to listen to, I'd probably have to choose the Pope, who is the leader of our country's largest Christian denomination. I think his view differs from yours somewhat.

You make the assumption that mosaics equals evolution.

Well, it is interesting to ponder the alternatives. Actually, I'm glad to hear you make this statement, because it answers a question we've posed to you several times, albeit to no avail. The general question is, what should a transitional form be like? The link referenced here gives a pictorial view of the two possibilities. One follows the rules of genetics, and the basic principle that organisms reproduce according to their kind (with which you most likely agree). The other seems to be some kind of cartoon vision of evolution, based more upon "miracle" than the way that life actually works.

So, no, we don't make the assumption that "mosaics = evolution." Instead, we ask what is actually possible, and then look to see whether anything out there fits the description. Danged if everything seems to fit the description! So, while mosaics don't "prove" evolution, they certainly fail to disprove it. Genetics requires that evolution work that way.

[MagusYanam]

Do I need to explain to you yet again that the bible in several places presents Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again how the early christian took Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again that the simple reading of Genesis presents a literal account and not allegorical?

Do I need to expalin to you again how it is the modern evo-minded that need re-write half the bible to force Genesis to be a simple allegory?

Firstly, if you knew the places in the Bible where it says specifically that Genesis is a literal account, why didn't you cite them?

Secondly, how do you know what the average kerygmatic Christian did or didn't believe? Again, you should cite specific theological statements by kerygmatic theologians to back your claim.

Thirdly, the 'simple reading' of Genesis is trite at best - more likely meaningless. Even 'In the beginning' requires some interpretation - the earth being 'without form and void' requires some imaginative process. The phrasing itself is poetic. 'The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters', et cetera. Sure, you can read Robert Frost straight through like a diary or a simple narrative, but you don't get half of what he's actually saying from such a reading. So why not give the poets who wrote Genesis just as much credit?

Lastly, that last statement is either exaggerated or libellious. Modernism hasn't rewrit anything of the Bible - we've just found another way to read it. And Genesis is more than just a 'simple allegory' - to argue that modernism asserts such is a straw man. It's a very deep text that combines elements of history, genealogy, legend, pourquoi tale and metaphysical conjecture on the nature of good and evil (the creation story in particular is pretty dense on this).

And from my view, it seems as though Genesis makes better internal assertions as to its own ambiguous nature than to its literal historical value. The entire story of the Garden of Eden is a commentary on the loss of simplicity that has come with our predicament as a species. As literature, it is a brilliant piece of work. If it were meant to be just a history, there remains much to be desired.

[rjw]

Gidday YEC,

You make the assumption that mosaics equals evolution.

1) How on earth did you reach the conclusion that I made “the assumption that mosaics equals evolution”?
2) Why did you not address the rest of the post – given that it was not long and was relevant to this topic?


Regards, Roland

[YEC]

Do I need to explain to you yet again that the bible in several places presents Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again how the early christian took Genesis as literal?

Do I need to explain to you again that the simple reading of Genesis presents a literal account and not allegorical?

Do I need to expalin to you again how it is the modern evo-minded that need re-write half the bible to force Genesis to be a simple allegory?

Firstly, if you knew the places in the Bible where it says specifically that Genesis is a literal account, why didn't you cite them?

They have been cited numerous times already.

Still I will present an instance in my folllowing post.

Secondly, how do you know what the average kerygmatic Christian did or didn't believe? Again, you should cite specific theological statements by kerygmatic theologians to back your claim.

Consider the following "kergygmatic" character....Barnabus

In the book of Barnabus we read the following:

15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,
He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold this day a day shall be as a thousand years.
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.

Barnabus was saying that the creation period was a literal six days and each day of creation will represent an allotment of 1,000 years of earth hstory.

It’s obvious Barnabus wasn’t an old earth creationist.

Barnabus also believed Adam was formed from the dust as mentioned in Genesis:

6:9 What saith the knowledge? Learn ye. Hope, it saith, upon Jesus, who is about to be manifested unto you in the flesh. For man is but earth which suffers; for, from the face of the ground was made the moulding of Adam.

Barnabus did not write as if Adam was a myth.

Barnabus also believed in the scripture that we now know as Genesis.

6:12 For the scripture saith concerning us, that he
saith unto the Son, Let us make man after our own image and according to our likeness; and let them rule over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea. And the Lord said, when he saw how excellent our form was, Increase and multiply and replenish the earth. These things he saith unto
the Son.

Put it all together and Barnabus was a Young Earth Creationist.

Thirdly, the 'simple reading' of Genesis is trite at best - more likely meaningless. Even 'In the beginning' requires some interpretation - the earth being 'without form and void' requires some imaginative process. The phrasing itself is poetic. 'The spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters', et cetera. Sure, you can read Robert Frost straight through like a diary or a simple narrative, but you don't get half of what he's actually saying from such a reading. So why not give the poets who wrote Genesis just as much credit?

I did notice that Genesis didn't mention a single thing aboout evolution...once again it appears quite obvious that the simple reading is special creation

Lastly, that last statement is either exaggerated or libellious. Modernism hasn't rewrit anything of the Bible - we've just found another way to read it. And Genesis is more than just a 'simple allegory' - to argue that modernism asserts such is a straw man. It's a very deep text that combines elements of history, genealogy, legend, pourquoi tale and metaphysical conjecture on the nature of good and evil (the creation story in particular is pretty dense on this).

To add evolution where it isn't is considered as re-writing the accounts of Genesis.
For example, forming Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams side just isn't evolution any way you look at it...Even Barny in my post paragraph above knew that. Plain and simple, when you force the Genesis account to say evolution...you really mean evolutionISM.

And from my view, it seems as though Genesis makes better internal assertions as to its own ambiguous nature than to its literal historical value. The entire story of the Garden of Eden is a commentary on the loss of simplicity that has come with our predicament as a species. As literature, it is a brilliant piece of work. If it were meant to be just a history, there remains much to be desired.

Just what is our ambiguous nature? What simplicity did we lose? What is the predicament as a species?[