Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

Yeah, I’ve considered it, sure. But Death, bloodsehed, flesh eating before the first Adam doesn’t square up. Biblically or scientifically.
Day 1-5 it was ‘good.’ The 6th day it was ‘very good.’
Day 7 still going then too? God still resting?
Seems only ppl trying to fit in the unsupported teaching of millions of years are trying to make a ‘day’ more than 24hrs.

the meaning of the word "day" with a number always means a 24-hour period
https://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

We have civilization evidence from at least 25000 BCe, ans we have evidence of settlement and craft and industry to at least 50K. So what are we looking for, evidence of the "soul"?

I didn't say Homo S. wasn't smart or capable, if they had hands, cetaceans or crows might have built those things.

To elaborate, this is the answer I wrote elsewhere to the question of 'What is your most controversial belief.'

Quote:

It doesn’t quite make it to the level of belief, there is too big a chance I’m wrong, so I’ll put it in the category of theological possibility.
It has to do with when we become living souls. Some say it is at conception and others at birth and they form their feelings about abortion around their belief, whatever it is. I don’t have any real engagement with the abortion issue so this ‘belief’ has nothing to do with that.

It is said in the bible that God breathed life into the first man’s (Adam’s) nostrils and he became a living soul. I see no indication that we achieve living soul status in any other way so it is my assumption that the same is true of every man and woman who is a living soul. Logically, this event is not necessarily tied to conception or birth at all. It could happen at any time. Or not at all. This could explain my confusing observations of life as I experience it here.

Don’t get me wrong, I give the benefit of the doubt to every member of Homo Sapiens that I encounter and would never deny human status solely on the strength of my observations but in my heart of hearts, there are people here in whom I cannot detect the slightest sign of being a living soul. By that I do not mean that they lack belief in a God, I know a number of confirmed atheists who are clearly living souls. But there are those who, in spite of being active members of the human race, I could swear are the mere animals that materialist interpretations of existence say we all are.

God forbid that I or anyone should ever start a religion with this as a part of their dogma, but since you asked, I think we may live in a world where living souls exist side by side with animals masquerading as real people. I give them the benefit of the doubt and be kind to them.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

Yeah, I’ve considered it, sure. But Death, bloodsehed, flesh eating before the first Adam doesn’t square up. Biblically or scientifically.

I assume there was, but I see nothing Biblically, logically and certainly not scientifically that says there was none of that before Adam. This would all hinge on the nature and where the Garden of Eden was, and we do not have that info. The Bible says nothing about it other than that we bared from it now. 'Earth' as we know it may have been here far longer.

So where is the contradiction? Again, I don't claim to have the total truth, just searching for the answer that fits all the evidence.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I guess Ive never understood what a "soul" even was. ven in my catechetical days I thought of a soul as a little box that got stacked in order by God's helpers. When you died your box was opened and you were allowed to wander around glorious gardens and stuff.

No evidence ever. I guess my downfall came when I was too much concentrating on evidence as opposed to faith.

Good Luck on all that. At least your way f Christian belief allows there to be human before Adam. The concept of "pre Adamic man" was always kinda lamely explained by the YECs and even the OEC's . If I hadda be a believer , id be a devout reformed Jew.

They tried to Kill us all
They failed because a God interceded
Lets Eat.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

No evidence ever. I guess my downfall came when I was too much concentrating on evidence as opposed to faith.

I think belief has to come before faith, and belief based on understanding, not blind acceptance. There really are not that many things that a Christian is asked to take on faith, and none of them are central to the story anyway.

The evidence for the soul may be like looking for the other dimensions in string theory, they are folded invisibly inside the ones we can see. But yes, 'inside' was where the evidence is seen or sensed. But I can't even name the sense with which it is sensed.

Quote:

They tried to Kill us all
They failed because a God interceded
Lets Eat.

Sounds like Solomon in Ecclesiastes.

Ec:1:17: And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
Ec:1:18: For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

[so he concluded]

Ec:8:15: Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It's pretty clear from the text that Jesus had not certainty about his own status as messiah or prophet. And he refers to the messiah as the "son of man".

He never said he was the one and only "Son of God".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

yes he did.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm getting a bit confused, are we talking about Jesus or Chesney Hawkes, because I'm fine either way.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Chesney Hawkes

Boy, theres a stage name if there ever was one. Sorta like HOLDEN McGROIN

1 Reply

@farmerman,

He was really big over here for all of six weeks.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

What do you make of fossilized thorns and thistles ‘millions of years’ before the first Adam?
https://creation.com/a-thorny-issue

Genesis 3:18 ‘ thorns and thistles Will BEGIN to appear.’
Part of the reason Jesus wore of the crown of thorns, to resemble the curse he took upon himself because of sin.....AFTER mankind was created.

Remember too, Genesis 1:29, ‘every plant for dood’
Genesis 9:3 ‘ I now give you everything for food‘ (flesh eating origins)
Isaiah 11:9 ‘The lion will lay with the lamb, and the child will play near the cobras hole’ ....A prophecy about the 1000 years of Christ’s future reign, Which reinforces gods definition of ‘good’ and ‘very good’ in Genesis chapter 1. 😎

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Figured I would share this link to address your comment on the last page regarding human civilizations ‘older’ than the flood apx. 4400 years ago. A short video Explaining where that idea comes from, And that there is zero concrete evidence for such ideas.

This is yet another example of not just your teachings, but evolution teachings in general. Although they may be popular, they stand on absolutely no facts or strong foundation.
Yet another reason you and other ‘old earthers’ should make the shift to stand on the foundation of gods written word 😉💪

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_J4ts

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

What do you make of fossilized thorns and thistles ‘millions of years’ before the first Adam?
https://creation.com/a-thorny-issue

Genesis 3:18 ‘ thorns and thistles Will BEGIN to appear.’

If you misquote your own source people will doubt you. I have copied what it actually said below to compare.

Quote:

God said to Adam:

“Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:17–19)

As often happens here, you do not engage the arguments I reply with. You ignored what I said about the garden of Eden. That would be a more plausible reason they had no need to worry about thorns and thistles there. From the description, it does not sound as if they had to worry about agricultural farming at all in the garden. If the garden were was on earth as we know it, where is that gate that is stopping us from entry?

When you infer the age of the earth from a phrase like that you create more contradictions than you solve.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The tree in the Garden of Eden was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which represents the mind mature enough to divide things into opposites and form the idea of an independent existence, or ego, separated from the world. The "gate" is a growth stage in developing consciousness that separates us and makes us feel alienated from nature. It's, essentially, a defense mechanism.

There is a second tree in the Garden of Eden called the tree of unity, but our developing mind--the gate-- separates us from that feeling of unity.
In Christianity the crucifix becomes the tree of unity, and those with faith regain that feeling of unity.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

Im quite entertained by the guy who claimed that he found every "Phylum" of animal and plant intermixed with all the tratigraphic layers. Sveral of tho great museums, like the Field Museum an the Museum of Natural History in NY are wuite mticulous with their ollectons and especially thei "back room" storage units where they identify species an higher taxa wrt the proper stratigraphic time element. Under NO ircumstance could he say that he found fossils of "All phyla" admixed as a "jumble " of fossils as on would see in flood deposits (Not that there arent individual high energy deposits of fossils that Creationists need to call "Flood".

Geology is a rather mature cience wherein the order of stratigraphy an the environments of deposition are studied to minute detail and are able to vidence all sorts of dry land as well as watr born deposits.
Id love to se his reasoning to say that hes found mammals in thePaleozoic or trilobites in the Mesozoic. Also , the appearance of angiosperms in the Triassic is a good time line.

His spiehls about the "lack of transitional fossils" is also a lie. There are plenty, including frogs (Maybe he just likes to ignore evidence )
The "Dawn frog" retained many earlier features from Eustenopterid fishs(which gave rise to salamanders an early frogs)

Much of the hiatus of fossils is, ofcourse due to the fragmentary nature of stratigraphy, deposition, followed by rosion or uplift can disappear who segments of life.. HOwever a great bulk of trnsitional fossils remain so that even the most bitter Creationist will need to "create positional evidence" which does not exist.
Im quite familir how "Creation scientists" have used lies and fraud to make their bogus points.

That guy took 60000 pictures an came up with nothing. I would like to read his analyses and show him the back room collections of a place like the Field Museum in Chicago. Id like to be there and ask him questions about how he reached his conclusions despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You just accept what he sayas without any study of your own. ven in undergrad geology courses we try to make the kids reproduce evidence or do field work on thir own. We , in geology, outdo the requirements of lab "field" work to support book lessons and lectures.

You seem to ned some of that to see whether youd maintain your beliefs about the fossil record or a 6000 year old earth.

PS look up Triadobatrchus in a more detailed paleo text (like any elsevier pub) and read about how this dawn frog has retained salamander traits.

I have to admit that bats are quite an enigma for preservation of earlier forms. There are 1 or 2 earlier fossil forms from the late Paleocene and early Eocene but most early bats are missing from the fossil record. ( However,the dates on these units are very accurately cross referenced by radionuclides (t least 5 different nuclide including Ytterbium Phosphate and haffnium) as well as remnant magnetism dates and several other techniques. The sciences of determining time sequences is quite mature . The comment was once made at a discussion in a meeting, "Most all missing fossils are either in bats and birds. Could it be because of their light bone structure or the fact that these things spent time away from water carried sediments. Theres lots folks studying bat evolution and theyve found 2 new fossils in the past yer

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

Quote:

The tree in the Garden of Eden was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which represents the mind mature enough to divide things into opposites and form the idea of an independent existence, or ego, separated from the world. The "gate" is a growth stage in developing consciousness that separates us and makes us feel alienated from nature. It's, essentially, a defense mechanism.

There is a second tree in the Garden of Eden called the tree of unity, but our developing mind--the gate-- separates us from that feeling of unity.
In Christianity the crucifix becomes the tree of unity, and those with faith regain that feeling of unity.

I think your interpretation is closer than the religions I'm familiar with. The impression I get is that the 'unity' was there in the nature of things to begin with, it was there by virtue of the way initial conditions were set up by the creator. But it was not something chosen by 'man', and the creator saw the need for everything to be a free will choice by man if his long term goals were to succeed.

I agree with some of the critics of the story - it was a setup. God wanted his creation to freely choose everything, even the choice to have a choice. They could have chosen to stay 'innocent' and live in a 'Stepford Wives' world where they blissfully went about living and multiplying and never knowing the possibilities of rebellion that God had already seen in his other sentient creations. But they could not have the intimate relationship with God that was the ultimate goal of all this.

The leader of that previous rebellion presented this very challenge to God. He said that given a clean slate start with no biasing factors and total freedom of choice we would choose his way and not a single living soul would choose and find the path meant for us. God wanted us to take on that challenge. He knew that only egos that had succssfully done that could coexist long term with the powers they would eventually have.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Exactly. Thorns and thistles began to appear after sin, (tomato tomatoe, same thing) after the first Adam, just as pain, suffering, bloodshed, disease etc. Yet the popular false teaching preached by false teachers, and By uninformed/compromising Christians, is that these things existed before the first Adam was created via evolution.

The ‘gate’ to the original location would have been lost in the flood.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

And how do we know those fossil frog interpretations are incorrect? (Like all other ‘transitional’ fossil interpretations)
Again, we know not. a. single. protein. (NEW genetic coding/info) can be produced by random chance.
Both Abiogenesis(the bacteria machine) And Macro evolution impossible.

In other words, the only thing we ever observe whether living or fossilized is a rearrangement of genetic information for variety of species within their created kinds/DNA groups as laid out in Genesis. (Microevolution)

Also, examples like the Coelacanth, which although being labelled and interpreted as a transitional fossil of a kind of fish that crawled out onto land, this fish has been discovered alive and well, (a ‘living fossil’) and has been observed doing nothing of the sort!

Don’t forget vestigial structures which were misinterpreted like whale ‘leg’ bones, which were used, and sadly still are used as evidence in favour of these creatures once having legs!....although recent scientific discoveries have revealed these bones are used for reproductive purposes.

One misinterpretation after another after another after another. And still zero Hard evidence.

Your frog example is just another twisted/distorted interpretation.
A weak argument that because two biological ‘machines’ have similarities, they must have a similar ancestor...like desktops and laptops have similarities...yet too, LACK the ability to produce NEW coding/information/parts.
A for effort tho👍

Focus on the big picture.

P.s. I like your reference to water being the source, and to the lack of bird fossils, which confirms for the most part that life forms were buried by the flood according to where* they lived, not when* they lived.

2 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

I will dmit that theres a whole lot I dont know.However, my admission of ignorance is at a much higher level than yours. You read **** on web sites devoted to Creationist fraud and bullshit and believe it. I read it and know that its fraud and bullshit.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Outside of a very few Pleistocene megafauna and Hominims, Im not aware of ANY fossils displaying DNA, so Im not sure here you get that opinion.

"Whale Claspers" are indeed vestigial legs . Thir structure is a total mimetic structure to ancestral limbs.Certain snakes have the same structures and even have vestigial "hips". Dont let some Creationist clown convince you otherwise.

Quote:

Again, we know not. a. single. protein. (NEW genetic coding/info) can be produced by random chance.
Both Abiogenesis(the bacteria machine) And Macro evolution impossible.

Another word salad. Whered ya get this ?? from some Bible tract. I know how the Creationist "Keystone Projct" people like to toss scientific terms around to make up antiscience phrases. Youre now one of em.

Labeling the Coelecanth as a "Missing link" was not a science phrase, It was a newspaper's title.The term "Living fossil" is often called an oxymoron by biologists but not paleontologists. Darwin invented the term and in paleontology it has a precise meaning which is (out of AGI Encyclopedia of geologic terms):

"A living fossil is the living representative of an ancient group of organisms that is expected to have gone extinct, but isnt.
Usually this also means that,in addition, the living representative is rare or at least uncommon and has a restricted geographical range (due to its fine adaptational range)

Science never ever posed the belief that it was a missing link or a transitional form. Its just another example of several other species, lik the horshoe CrabLimulus polyphemus, the Virginia opposum Didelphus virginianum, all the GarfishAtractoseus,The Australian lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri and Dawn RedwoodsMetasequoia glyptostroboides

The only reason I can think of why the Creationists have jumped on this as a"proof of concept" that paleontology is BS is that its a bigass fish and only found in two places on earth, both of which are adjacent to continental abyssal zones and were caught by "accident" on their first discoveries. IT MADE A GREAT STORY, Hence the newspapers picked it up an the word "missing link" was added (you think the Creationists did this to just stir the pot?? Those littl tyks are always doing that just becaue they have no original acience to add they kick out at others and swear up and down that what they say is not Busshit. (We know better though dont we?)

Keith Thompson's 1991 book LIVING FOSSIL is one of the best summaries of the whole story of this fish.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know