Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

Combating the lie of evolution

Posted by truthtalklive on December 5, 2007

 Why have Christians bought into the lie of evolution? How can we expose this lie worldwide?

Todays guest is Dr. Manny Fernandez with World Link Ministries (www.worldlinkministries.org)


39 Responses to “Combating the lie of evolution”

  1. John said

    After my last post about the plight of Leea Gardner I was feeling really down. And then I heard your show.
    I can always count on you to put a big smile on my face.Thanks[grin]!

    Stu, do you really think that the modern evolutionary sciences teach that mankind evolved from monkeys?Please tell me that you were just “playing the crowd”.Your guest was a funny character.Guest like him are why people like me enjoy the show so much,so well done.Again.
    The evidence is there, people like him just can’t accept it.
    Also, if one is truly interested in seeing intermediate stages of evolution,AT WORK NOW, in your lifetime,instead of looking at the “big stuff” that Creationists already discredit, look at bacteria,viruses, and insects, as evolution always occurs fastest with those things that multiply fastest.Study the mutations.I’m sure Ken Ham has some great religious story to try and explain this away. Or not.

  2. MonkeyMan said

    We need to understand the difference between:

    MICROevolution – changes within a kind(bacteria becoming resistant, fruit fly mutations, etc.)

    MACROevolution – changes from one kind to another(fish to amphibian, or rock to single-celled organism)

    MICROevolution is well documented and is supported by true scientific research. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that there is proof for this type of evolution including Darwin’s finches.

    MACROevolution, on the other hand is not documented at all and is not supported by true scientific research nor the fossil record. This is where creationists and evolutionists disagree.

    Also, evolutionary science doesn’t teach that mankind evolved from monkey’s. It teaches that man evolved along with monkeys and apes from a common ancestor. Same “evolutionary” tree, different branches. But that is beside the point.

    Let the evolutionists answer for themselves. Read some of Richard Dawkins remarks concerning “evolutionary evidence” and “transitional fossils”. He says there is no evidence for either, and he is evolutions top “dog”, no pun intended.

    We can use a good laugh – check the video out!

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  3. bookwrm said

    I only caught the last part of tonight’s show – interesting, although fairly one-sided. There are several sincere views out there which are compatible with the Bible, but it seemed that the guest was inclined to a general “anti-science” view, rather than just a disagreement about one particular theory, evolution. (btw: The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, and the “old” age of the universe proceeds out of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which the guest seemed very ready to support.(?)) As a scientist myself (degrees in physics and chemistry, not biology), I find this type of anti-science rhetoric divisive and damaging to the church as a whole.

    I was also saddened to hear how the caller named Terry (if I recall correctly) was treated. Although not a scientist, he is making an honest attempt to understand the world around him and how it relates to spiritual truth, and he had some valid points, although he lacked the technical knowledge to word his questions precisely. Treating such a person with impatience, simply asking them to believe what you’re saying without adequately listening to their questions, turns many curious, scientifically-minded people away from Christianity.

    I’m afraid he went away with the impression that it was an all-or-nothing proposition: either give up scientific investigation or give up any hope of belief in God. There are many intelligent and competent scientists (like many astronomers I know) who are convinced there IS a God simply through their scientific observations. (This is the concept of “General Revelation” which many in the church seem to have discarded.)

    Scientifically minded people like Terry may get a less chilly reception by speaking to Christians who are more scientifically literate than tonight’s guest. (As a suggestion, start by looking at http://www.reasons.org or even http://www.answersincreation.org.) One’s opinions about the validity of current scientific principles are not critical to one’s belief in God, and should not divide the church or turn seeking people away from an investigation of Christian beliefs.

    Finally, from someone well-versed in chemistry and physics (though, granted, not so well in biology), it seems that evolution is pretty implausible. The statistical improbabilities involved in a chance process producing so many beneficial mutations in the relatively short time given (~14 billion years for the universe, ~4.5 billion years for the earth) are staggering, especially given the complexity of the earliest know life forms. Biology is a very complex science, so solid models are much more difficult to create than in more basic sciences, like physics. Thus, we should expect biological sciences to lag behind physical sciences in their discoveries, but give the scientific process a chance. Scientists will get it more and more right as time and research progresses. After all, there is only one “truth”!

    Sorry for the long post — would love to converse with others on this topic if you’re interested…

  4. John said

    Uh Huh, ssuuuuurrrrrrre.[smile] At least you knew about “Darwin’s finches”.Can it be proven that the first man on earth was made out of dirt, and that his second wife[the first was Lilith,according to the Talmud] Eve was made from one of his ribs?
    I wonder, would the Creationists of this website accept evidence for divine creation if it came from a non-Christian religion?And if not then why? Surely the “evidence” could not be any less believable.
    Try and explain why humans suffer from “wisdom tooth” pains.
    Or why whales and dolphins have hip and leg bones.
    There is no shame in having a primitive ancestry.

  5. Fred said

    Stu should be ashamed of himself for airing such a show. I mean, most of us get it, but why take the chance that some of the listeners take this show seriously?

    Truth Talk?

    If I were a sponsor I would be looking for a new place to advertise.

  6. Joe said

    Stu – your guest crossed the line by insulting one of your callers. Suggesting that the caller “Tracy” can’t read just because of his beliefs is un-called for. While I agree with Dr. Fernandez, I felt his remark was inexcusable. Also, why won’t you let your callers finish their sentences?

  7. Anonymous1 said

    Why would the advertiser want to swich? Controversy like this is what brings the eyeballs to the site and the advertisers want to reach more people.

  8. Jeff said

    “Anonymous1” – thanks for adding the number! this way we can keep you guys separate. 🙂

  9. Anonymous1 said

    Thanks, Jeff. Yes, that is frustrating, isn’t it?

  10. John said

    Bookwrm, I am interested in conversing more on this topic[ pointless as it may be in the long-run, anyway], if anything for the opportunity to see this from a different perspective. What kind of a scientist are you? I’m no scientist, more of a naturalist, a bibliophile hick,so I don’t have your education.But I can hold my own in a discussion on theology and most of the natural sciences.
    Would you like to give it a try? For grins and giggles?

    Now that there’s another John posting, I guess from now on I’ll have to add something to my name.Maybe John the Witch.

  11. MonkeyMan said

    ” There are many intelligent and competent scientists (like many astronomers I know) who are convinced there IS a God simply through their scientific observations. (This is the concept of “General Revelation” which many in the church seem to have discarded.) ”

    Yeah that is true, but believing in ” A ” god is different than believing in ” THE ” God of the Bible. General revelation, or as Hugh Ross would call it the 67th book, will lead one to believe in any deity, not a specific one. This allows for pantheism, paganism, agnosticism, even atheism.

    As has been stated, scientific theories constantly change(evolve) and thus we cannot build our foundation on this. The earth, according to Biblical record, has gone through a drastic change since its first appearance. Thus, we can’t truly come to a proper understanding of God based solely on what we see in nature.

    But, then again if a world-wide flood is rejected then uniformitarianism can be accepted. Oh, but then we must take Genesis 3 out because that is when sin came into the world and brought forth death. But evolutionary science says death has been around for billions of years. Man, since those scientists are so brilliant, lets just throw the Bible in the garbage. Obviously God got it wrong, if there really is a God? But since the Bible is wrong, then there can’t be any absolute truth. So what I believe, or you believe is relative to what we want to believe is true. I said it, I believe it, that settles it! My deity is who/what I want him/her/it/nothing to be.

    And along with that, our society will continue to devolve toward a primitive state whereby we begin to act like what we are told we are(animals). OOHH OOHH EE EE.

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  12. F. L. A. said



  13. John said

    After reading your replies I can’t help but wonder……why do you call your self “MonkyMan”?
    Also, there is no shame in being a member of the animal kingdom unless you make it so.Tell me, what are your opinions on the concept of Theistic Evolution? Just wondering[because I find you interesting].

  14. MonkeyMan said

    Theistic evolution – It’s like saying 1 + 1 = 0, it can’t be. The core of evolution is a belief in naturalism, aka a denial of any deity. All true, dogmatic atheists are evolutionists – from Huxley, to Bozarth, to Dawkins, etc. all staunch atheists and all staunch evolutionists.

    I never knew why the science centers were called “natural science center” until I understood its evolutionary framework. Natural denies the supernatural.

    The error in believing in evolution(besides there being no proof) is that you cannot be dogmatic on anything. All is relative and to be interpretted by the viewer based on their own pre-conceived understanding. Thus, to me abortion is murder. But to Planned parenthood it is a womans choice. Without absolute truth – everything is subjective. Everything is brought down to a level of “opinion” and whoever has the loudest voice will win.

    Thus, more and more kids are killing each other, more and more kids are becoming rebellious toward authority, more and more kids are doing what is right in their own eyes. Even the laws of the land cannot control a generation that has been brought up evolutionized and subjected to relative morality.

    Are you offended by beastiality, pedophiles, euthanasia, pornography, homosexuality, heterosexuality, polygamy, etc.? Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? What’s good for the goose is not always what is good for the gander. Your truth is not necessarily my truth.

    When relative morality and subjective interpretation takes over in this nation, one of at least two results will follow – Anarchism or Communism, maybe Dictatorship.

    Yet, is there absolute truth and if so who is the author? Creation says there is a creator, but who is the Creator? There are many religious writings out there. Which is truly absolute and from Deity? To me the answer is obvious. There is a Holy book that has stood the test of time, that declares absolute truth – The Holy Bible. This book reveals to us who this creator is. This book declares absolutely that the Creator of all that is and will be is Jesus Christ, Elohim, Emmanuel, the Holy One.

    No other religious writing compares to this book. No other deity compares to this One True and Living God, Jesus Christ.

    That’s my humble thoughts and I’m sticking to it.
    Peace > MonkeyMan

  15. John said

    Are you trying to convince us, or yourself? We could have a lot of fun with someone like you[toothy grin].

    But later on.Good night.

  16. Tommy said

    Stu –
    I listened to this show and was kind of shocked in the way your quest treated the caller named Tracy. Last I recalled to witness to a person did not include insulting remarks about not being able to read when their views differ. I felt the whole tact and general attitude of the guest was poor in nature. The abuse of your quest was one that I would have dished out when I was playing for the other side and running COS chat rooms, not something I expected from a Christian guest.

    Regards –

  17. Summer said

    Hello Monkeyman. Would you please try to explain how theistic evolution is like 1+1=0? Makes no sense to us.Maybe you have a differint idea of what it is.

    Also, I’d like you to try and answer John’s questions in reply #4.

  18. John said

    Hey Bookwrm, I enjoyed reading the web sites you advised.
    Particularly the http://www.answersincreation.org information on the dinosaurs, and their teeth.
    Check it out MonkyMan, if you haven’t already.

  19. MonkeyMan said

    “Psalm 104 – Clear proof that Noah’s Flood was local, and of death before Adam’s sin” – this was taken off the website listed on post# 18.

    There is no “clear” proof for a local flood, but there is pretty solid evidence for a world-wide flood. The las point “death before Adam’s sin” is what we young-earth creationists have a big, big problem with. The Bible is clear that the wages of sin is death. In Genesis 2 it is stated in the Hebrew “dying you shall die” which encompases both the physical death and spiritual death, the wages of sin.

    I’ve seen the website before and read Hugh Ross’ articles. I believe Mr Ross to be a compromiser. Since there is no proof of molecules to man evolution, why are Christians accepting it and promoting it? Bottom line is that they doubt the inerrancy of the Scriptures, even though the Scriptures have stood the tests of time and skeptics.

    It all goes back to “what is truth and is there any absolute truth?” Either the God of the Bible created just as He said in the Bible or the God of the Bible, or at least the Bible is in error. I have no reason to doubt the Scriptures. I’ll leave that up to the skeptics to prove………….and still waiting.

    One last thing. I do not see how anyone who truly knows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can ever walk away from Him. We do not worship a dead god or idol. Our God is living and He changes lives always for the better. Help me understand.

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  20. John said

    There are many biblical passages that could be used to “prove” that the earth is not round.The founder of the Flat Earth Society [ever hear of these guys? They still exist!]offered a large reward to anyone who could provide proof that the earth was rounded, and yet, to this day the reward has never been claimed.Not for lack of evidence,but for lack of acceptance of evidence.
    I think that if I tried to offer you evidence,it wouldn’t matter because your in a similar situation as the founder of the society mentioned above.If I am wrong then I apologize.
    You see, the dilemma that a person in my situation has in trying to provide proof concerning the ancient world and it’s life to a creationist, young- earth, Christian such as yourself is that, if you doubt modern scientific dating techniques, or modern science period[especially for religious reasons],then we will have no common ground to work with and no amount of evidence provided will be able to satisfy you. Do you understand what I mean?Also, I’ve noticed that,although it’s good to have a faith,if a scientist tries to study the natural sciences[especially anything relating to evolutionary sciences or an ancient earth]through a strong religious view,then the studies and the results become flawed, due to the religious biasness of the scientist.Because any results or evidence that are contrary to the religious belief-system of the scientist will be conveniently left out,denied,or manipulated to conform to the belief system.You know it’s true.Atheistic scientist are always being accused of this sort of thing.A scientist must try to be impartial.
    I know that you are very proud of your theological view of the universe, and this is good.But try to understand that this is only 1 view out of a multitude of views.No doubt somewhere in another galaxy or dimension life forms that we can’t even conceive are having similar debates, maybe even wars, over such topics.And they would, of course, have their own”living true deity\deities”,and some “proof” to back it up.Ever think about that?[smile]
    I think that your God was once a local God, like other deities of this earth, and that he grew in power and domain as his worshipers grew in power and domain.Go re-read the first half of what I wrote in reply #4. Almost EVERY theological view[religion] has a creation,divine origins story.How are they less “factual” than those you have?No doubt that if other religions had the support,and put as much time and effort into spiritual world domination that Christianity has, then they could provide just as much “proof” that their religious view was the only true one,and should be taught in the school system, etc,etc,.This doesn’t mean that your theological view is completely wrong, mind you,I’m only trying to imply that perhaps you should be a little agnostic in attitude about such things as the origin of life,evolution,deity seniority,and other such “super heavy” topics.We can argue about it if you wish and play what I call the “My Deity is better than your Deity Game”, but it wouldn’t really solve anything.Think well before replying, as I’m making copies of everything for future study,for others too.
    Blessed Be.

  21. Mike Sears said

    You make some excellent points regarding science. I believe that “science with an agenda” is not science at all. To approach science with a mindset to prove your own beliefs causes one to be prejudiced about the data and the results. Having said that, I do believe that there are scientists who are non-prejudiced in their research. Although I would have a hard time believing a scientist who seriously studies the huge gaps in the fossil record, the degenerative (not generative) process of mutations, the laws of thermal dynamics, etc. and still concludes that evolution is a fact (not a theory) in spite of the holes that exist in such a theory.

    I have a problem with scientists being dogmatic about theories that are still open to new data. There were many scientists in the past who were dogmatic about their theories being true only to made to look like fools once conflicting evidence was discovered.

    Back to agenda (or philosophical) driven science. You made the point, “if a scientist tries to study the natural sciences through a strong religious view, then the studies and the results become flawed, due to the religious biasness of the scientist. Because any results or evidence that are contrary to the religious belief-system of the scientist will be conveniently left out, denied, or manipulated to conform to the belief system.” I agree!

    Now let’s look at a couple of quotes and please tell me if these do not make a religious/philosophical claim. A widely used college textbook, Evolutionary Biology makes this claim, “By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of life process superfluous.” Another example is a 1995 statement by the National Association of Biology Teachers whereby they assert that all life is the outcome of “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process.” How can a responsible scientist make claims that the source life is “purposeless, uncaring, undirected, impersonal”, etc? Those are philosophical beliefs that are unprovable, aside from the fact that I believe that there is a God who has revealed the opposite, but neither of these beliefs belong in a science text book do you not agree?

  22. John said

    Indeed I do, Mr. Sears[toothy grin].
    Should humanity live so long, I’d love to know what the sciences are teaching 100 years from now.

  23. MonkeyMan said

    The issue is not whether one believes in or accepts the scientific dating methods or modern science. The issue is, is evolution science? No it is not. It is a method for interpretting the past. Our interpretation of the past will be determined by our presupositions. True science is factual, yet evolutionary or natural science is not true science nor factual. It is a belief system.

    And I have read other “religious” accounts of origins – from native American to Babylonian. It only confirms the Biblical accounts accuracy. Also, in context the Bible has always taught that the earth is a sphere, not flat.

    This all goes back to our inherent depravity – we, as children of Adam, do not want to know the true God. Yet, He continues to reveal Himself to us. Thank God for His grace and mercy. Blessed be His name Jesus Christ.

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  24. ADB said

    I find interesting the recent resurgence in young earth creation. I’m curious from an academic standpoint what accounts for it. In the 19th century and very early 20th century there were any number of folks that no-one would today call an evolutionist or liberal who tended toward an old earth position- Charles Hodge, Scofield, and at least one of the authors of the Fundamentals, from which the term “Fundamentalist” comes. In the wake of the infamous monkey trial, there was a clear movement toward the young earth view as a way of “holding the line” against evolution. But it seems to me that there is clearly a movement toward the young earth position and I am curious as to whether there are cultural, social, factors that account for equating biblical inerrancy and young earth creation that we see today. I mean no disrespect to MonkeyMan or other “young earthers” out there, and don’t really want to enter debate about the age of the earth, but just wanted to pose a question with some historical perspective. (by way of disclaimer, my seminary training was at a conservative reformed school that did not hold to a young earth, and I tend to follow that path)

    A curmudgeonly pastor

  25. John said

    I swear that I’m starting to become addicted to this little computer..I find your response to be most confusing,MonkeyMan.Modern scientific dating methods are strongly connected to all that evidence and proof that you keep asking evolutionists like myself to provide you with.I thought I explained this in my post #20.You believe in a “young” earth that is ,what, 6 to 50 thousand years old?All of the evidence that I’d try to give you would only count for anything if you were willing to believe in an earth that was in the hundreds of millions[actually older, but hey,why get nit-picky?[smile]]of years old.So you see, your very belief of a younger world keeps you from getting what you’re asking for.I could try to give it to you anyway, but at best it would only serve you as an insight into a “faulty” belief system.Understand? You must have a unique idea of what science and religion is.How do Pagan religious origin stories confirm biblical accounts? Which biblical accounts?Which Pagan origin stories specifically? Narrow things down for me so I can look it up to check it out.
    In “context”?Which verses are you referring to that, in the proper context teach that the earth is a sphere? We can swap bible verses!I can show you the verses that help “prove” that the earth is flat, and that the sky is “vaulted”[toothy grin].
    I can also point out some bible verses that imply that the Christian God may not be the only deity,which is horribly heretical of me, but as a Witch, shouldn’t be surprising.
    Considering the contents of my post#20, I was hoping that you would have had much more to say.Like my talk about other intelligent, religious life-forms.Do you ever ponder such things?And what of my questions in reply #4? Bear in mind that I’m not going to try and change your religious beliefs, as people like you are far more valuable to me the way you are. I’m simply using you as a theological study specimen.Hope that you don’t mind.
    Eagerly awaiting your response,
    And good luck.

  26. MonkeyMan said


    Please bear in mind that the dating methods are not 100% accurate. It is almost impossible to get a date of millions of years from a dinosaur bone – Carbon dating. There are many well qualified scientists, even evolutionary scientists who can attest to this. Just search the web. The bottom line is that there is no transitional forms, neither in the fossil record or in the live specimens of today. There is no evidence for molecules to man evolution. Without this evidence, there is no use in espousing an old earth/old universe. You really need to go and read some of the top evolutionist and atheist quotes before you assert their so-called science as true. The heart of evolution is a belief in natural process, a denial of any deity.

    Also, you make assertions about intellegent life on other planets, in other galaxies, yet where is that proof. America has been sending probes/satelites and men in to space for years and yet they have found not one shred of evidence for life besides on the planet earth only. I can say there are little green men on Mars but what I say doesn’t make it true.

    Pagan stories of the origin of man, or flood legends, etc. have a lot of similarities to the Biblical accounts. Yet, these pagan accounts do not fully explain in detail these accounts. Islam has its origin account, yet again, not detailed like the Biblical account. Well, why do the religions have stories about the origin of man, many have flood legends, and stories of how the “races” came into existence? There is some great articles available on the young-earth creationist websites that explain this Biblically. Yet, you will not accept this because it is too narrow-minded.

    As for proof texts for the earth and a mulitiplicity of deities, I choose not to go there with you. Anyone can use any verses in the Bible to prove and teach anything. Yet, there is only one true interpretation. You can do a search on the web and find some “christian” site that will teach that God is a woman and Jesus was gay. Does that make it true? Absolutely NOT. You can go to BlueLetterBible.org or Bible.org and study the verses for yourself. The Bible emphatically affirms the Oneness of God, not a plurality of gods. The Bible emphatically affirms the spherical shape of the earth and denies a flat earth. Again, in context. But, I encourage you to do your studies before grabbing verses and saying this or that. I’m sure I can go to wiccan writings and do the same to “prove” what I want to.

    ADB, young-earth creationism is not new. The majority, if not all of the reformers were young-earth creationists. People such as Augustine, Josephus, Ussher, etc. were young-earth creationists. It’s not a new concept. I think the resurgence of this doctrine is due to the Church compromising with atheistic evolution over the past 100 or so years and this has left American society in shambles. There is a connection between a belief in evolution(whether theistic or atheistic doesn’t matter) and anarchy. The essense of evolution is: From chaos comes order. You probably know this concept well. It was taught by Scofield, Warfield and others – known as theistic evolution, specifically the gap theory. The church cannot preach Jesus Saves and at the same time say evolution is true(molecules to man-humans are just evolved animals). The heart of the gospel is “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ” yet if death has existed for billions of years then Jesus didn’t die for our sin. He died because death is a natural process of life as evolution continues. Thus His death was in vain, we are still in our sins. But what is sin? Ask John what sin is. Ask Richard Dawkins what sin is? The church is not becoming a stronger witness for Christ by accepting any form of molecules to man evolution. It is becoming a stumbling block for multitudes of atheists, agnostics, pagans, wiccans, etc. At least the young-earth creationists are being consistant with the Scriptures and not looking to evolutionary science to interpret the Bible for us.

    I’m not here to offend anyone and I’m not offended. The battle rages on and yet the Word of God continues to stand true. There is no pride in self. There is only complete trust in the God of the Bible and the Bible of God.

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  27. F. L. A. said


  28. Joe said

    What is the deal with these Wiccans and their “toothy grins”? Do Wiccans constantly smile, or something????? HAHA! Just kidding you guys. Harmless joke…no offense….just being silly. I’ve read “Interview with a Wiccan” on this blog. That’s how I know. -Joe

  29. Mike Sears said

    Isn’t it those fangs they are referring to. Oops! That’s vampires, sorry. ANOTHER BIG TOOTHY GRIN! :->]

  30. F. L. A. said


  31. MonkeyMan said

    According to evolution, if we give the “fangs” enough time they will evolve.

    Do y’all sky clad? That is so Taboo 🙂
    [snicker snicker, fork-tongue sticking out]

    Before we get the ACLU involved, I was joking – ha ha [venom spraying from unsheathed fangs]

    Peace > MonkeyMan

  32. John said

    Uh,…….what was THAT all about?So now you’re a venomous snake, or something? A literal devils advocate[HAHAHA!]?That’s not going to win you any support on this site.
    I give you almost two whole days and this is what I have to look forward to.I was expecting something a little more in depth, MonkyMan.No, we don’t worship skyclad.We live in the swamps of Florida.The blood sucking flies alone would kill you.Lost tourists have died, in their madness to escape them.There are also many thorny and poisonous plants.My farmers tan is extreemly obvious.
    Joe: No, but some of us can’t help but smile when we read all the goodies on a web-site like this.F. L. A. grins perpetually.
    Mr.Sears: Lucky guess.
    As far as dating dinosaurs goes,the chronometric dating technique known as “carbon dating” is not used on dinosaur bones,or other, older, fossilized remains very much because carbon decays “rabidly”, and cannot be used for remains much older than 75,000 years.Works great on “cave men” and ice age beasts, though.So scientist rely more on relative dating,the technique of paleomagnetism, the uranium sequence, and the potassium-to-argon sequence, which involves chemical elements.I could explain them to you if you wish.No, the dating techniques aren’t 100% perfect,as nothing made of man truly is,but it’s pretty darn close!
    There is evidence of transitional forms,I think that you just refuse to accept them for what they are.Or you have not studied into it very well.I will give you some examples if you wish[just for arguments sake?].And then perhaps we could get into the creation-killing topic of vestigial organs and limbs[grin].
    I never truly understood the animosity some Christians have for the concept of human evolution.Pride and arrogance,perhaps.It wont make you less of a person. Unless you want it to.You’ve mentioned “molecules to man”, but it’s actually FAR more complicated than this, but still not impossible.I’m confident that, in time, science will find all the answers.Unless we go extinct first.On that note,here’s something to ponder.Don’t you think that, if your God could make a man out of dirt, that he could create the simple RNA and DNA needed to get life going for humanity?Your bible says that MAN was made in the image of God. But what makes you so sure that God looks as modern men do today?What if your God has no true form, is an entity of pure energy and creative power,can appear in a multitude of forms, etc.,etc.Humans in their prideful arrogance would just ASSUME that God looked as THEY do, despite all of the different races.This is theistic evolution, which I believe in.Evolution does not have to involve a denile of Deities, unless you want it to.And I think that you do. Do you REALLY think that I’ve not studied what the top evolutionists and Atheists have had to say on these issues?I have almost all of their books!People like…

    See anybody familiar? How many,I wonder.And I’ve also got an impressive collection of books from the opposition.Would you like me to list some of their names too[smile]?
    As for your views on alien life, my goodness, what a tiny,lonely,version of the universe you exist in.I’m sure glad that I don’t exist in there with you.I exist in a universe without boundaries, full of infinite possibilities.Must be awful cold way up on that pedestal were you placed Man and his one little planet.And I wasn’t only talking about life in deep space.Our world has more going for it than you’ll ever know.And there are worlds within worlds,too.

    “As for proof texts for the earth and a multiplicity of deities, I choose not to go there with you”-MonkeyMan

    Well why the heck not?!?!

    “Anyone can use any verses in the bible to prove and teach anything”-MonkeyMan.

    Yeeeeesssssssssssssssssssss. 100 out of 100 Non-Christians agree with you.This is part of the reason why people like me roll our eyes when fanatic Christians go on about the TRUTH of the gospels, the unchanging word of God,and so on, and so forth.As for your “one true interpretation”, good luck with that.I’ve met many people with many versions of what that was.Why do you think that there are soooooooo many Christian, and christian-like denominations? And these people want to try and tell US how we’re to worship? Give me a break.
    We’ve studied our bibles, and today I even interviewed an old Minister about it, but could find no scriptures in the bible that describe the earth as round in any way.If it’s in there at all, could you help me narrow down the search?
    ABD and Anonymous are both Holy Men.Perhaps they can help you.
    Well, the time has come for me to go and eat things.
    Blessed Be,John.

  33. bookwrm said

    Well, I haven’t been on the site for awhile, but have been interested to read the posts. I was afraid no one was going to be on this board, but I guess I didn’t need to worry.

    ADB: I too have been wondering about the recent popularity of the current form of young-earth creationism. I am aware that this belief was held by many in the past as well as the present, but I am surprised and worried about the militant nature of the current movement. In the past, this was a point of discussion among theologians and scientists of faith, but today it is an agenda that includes many who are well-versed in neither science nor theology. I have seen too many vicious attacks by adherents to this view against both non-Christians and those within the church who disagree on the age of the universe/earth. I can’t imagine what good could come of this attitude. I am a person who tends to worry less about disagreements on issues such as these (as fascinating as they are) and more about how we treat other people with whom we disagree…

    Of course, the age of the universe/earth is a separate question in many ways from the validity of the theory of evolution. The physical and chemical evidence that the universe and earth are old is so overwhelming (particulary astronomical evidence, multiple dating methods that can be cross-checked with one another, just as examples…) that I can’t accept the young-earth position, especially since the Bible says that “the heavens declare the glory of God”. If the universe were young, it seems to me that the “heavens” would be an example of God trying to “trick” us, and I don’t think that corresponds to the character of God. (By the way, I grew up in the church, so my bias would have been toward a Christian, not naturalistic, worldview. Still, the evidence (and I have actually looked at it and worked with it myself, not just read about it from someone else) is truly overwhelming.)

    However, look at it from the non-scientist’s perspective. They are left with the unenviable position of trying to sift through the opinions of others, with contradictory information coming from all sides. To make matters worse, the credentials offered by those who claim to be scientists are almost never sufficient to determine whether their claims are credible. Just as in any field, to know whether someone is truly a good scientist, you really have to be one yourself. I’m sure I would have a hard time deciding whether someone was a reliable theologian, or even a good biologist, since that is out of my field of expertise.

    I think I’ve probably written enough for one post, but just one more thing about my personal opinions: As I’ve said, I do see an old universe/earth as the only possible coherent interpretation of the data, and find no contraindication for this in the original biblical texts (which is the subject of a whole other post!). I can also see that evolution has occurred to some extent, although not necessarily on the grand scale. I don’t see the current evolutionary theory as being complete or accurate by any means, in fact it’s probably way off — there simply isn’t enough time for it to have occurred. However, a “theory” isn’t just what someone thinks, and it isn’t the final word either. It is simply the model that best fits the data. The current theory doesn’t fit the data very well, in my opinion, but it is the best we have at the current time. Scientists should continue trying to find a model that does fit the data better, and I’ll be content to wait until they have something better. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t think that that model will be consistent with the Bible as it is actually written (not just my interpretation given the world as I currently understand it), and so scientific progress doesn’t affect my religious faith in any way. Evolution is a scientific theory, and we should treat it as we do any theory — by continuing to research it. Those who want to use it as a social movement are as misguided and scientifically illiterate (no offense intended – just using a common phrase) as those who used Aristotle as a basis for the “earth centered universe” movement so many years ago.

  34. F. L. A. said


  35. ADB said

    It is interesting that both sides in this little debate both assume that science is correct, and operate from the same playing field. The Darwinians say that science must be followed and believed. Oddly enough, the other side, make the same assumptions by saying that the Bible is true because of scientific proofs for scripture. Perhaps those of us who esteem scripture (myself included) should not try to read this Holy Book as if it were a science or history text. There is much that is verifiable historically in the Bible, but the writers had a more important agenda I think.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  36. John said

    Yes, I think so too.And isn’t that interesting, the point you made about both sides of the debate trying to use science to back up their claims?I was going to mention this myself in my last response to MonkeyMan, but got side-tracked. Just for the record, I don’t have absolute faith in all of the sciences myself. As a Witch I tend to take more stock in magick and the supernatural.
    I may stand somewhat corrected, MonkeyMan.
    I was actually able to find ONE verse, that, if used in a certain context, could be used to describe the earth as round.
    But it was not in Genesis 1 and 2 as you advised.I found it in Isaiah 40:22, so score one point for you[grin].However, it only adds to the confusion, as there’s still more than a handful of verses that describe the earth in a completely different way.
    But who cares, I guess.We are getting off topic.
    You have mentioned your belief in a lack DEATH in the garden of Eden before the eviction of Adam and Eve.If you wish, we could debate about what obviously predatory animals fed on before the Fall.

  37. ADB said

    The Bible’s validity stems from the fact that it was inspired by God himself. (John I respect your candor and intellectual honesty, but we would part ways at this point I guess!) In arguing authority for the Bible, inerrancy, infallibilty, etc. the discussion must always begin with its inspiration, its source. The great error as I see it of the Fundamentalist position historically, is that it has ceded the playing field to liberal skeptics by assuming that only that which is scientifically verifiable is true. The result is intellectual dishonesty and silly efforts to prove and explain miracles, which by definition are unexplainable. In the case of the creation accounts and other parts of scripture, we err by basically assuming that the only valid writing would meet modern scientific or historical standards. This does not have anything to do with inerrancy of scripture, but has everything to do with how it is handled. The result is we get stuck trying to explain how lions were created with sharp teeth, how stars can look to be billions of years old if they are only 6,000 years old, and where Adam and Eve’s sons found wives. These things aren’t the point. The classic definition of inerrancy goes something like this- “the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts, in all it affirms.” That last phrase is a kicker- folks can try to make it affirm lots of things it was probably never meant to.

    A curmudgeonly pastor 🙂

  38. John said

    And I just like to argue about heavy, controversial topics.For fun.
    As you may recall,I did describe myself to Joe as a “..predatory,Pagan, pain in the ass..”, among other things.

    But I try not to be TOO annoying.After all, this is more YOUR site than mine.

  39. John said

    Is that the end of it then?
    Nothing more from MonkeyMan or anyone else? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: