Evolution debunked in 1980 by top scientists

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin East

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
of interest to anyone involved.

This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.

This article is completely informal and all I hope is that it makes people
think a bit.

Please excuse this article if it's content has already been discussed
elsewhere.


Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
--------------------------------------------------------

All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
doubting waters. Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to. If
you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more
strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
that out eventually. The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
,for instance, is not a metaphor.

--

In 1980 a meeting between top scientists around the world decided to try and
gather their evidence for the proof of evolutionary theory, they failed.
There was no proof which showed evolution in action.

Here are a few things which I could discuss in more detail - the examples
given are not the only ones. There are many examples which disprove
evolution. I will not force you to believe that God did make the world but I
will show that evolution did not.

Dinosaurs were around in biblical times ( meantioned in Joab as a creature
with a cedar tree sized tail (diplodicus probably). Known as dragons by many
early civilisations.

Fossils can be formed in 50 years. A miners hat was found fossilised in a
mine which was 50 years old.

Why are there not any fossils created now? Do you see fossils lying at the
bottom of our sea waiting to be fossilised? No - they rot. They always
have. Fossils are created by silt covering animals in a hurry. Earthquakes,
volcanoes, *floods* (specifically Noah's flood). Animal fossils which show
animals eating one another or giving birth prove this ( there are
hundereds).
They also have extreme detail present on them which would not be present had
they been rotting away.

Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form
horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
video).
All the top geologists agree that this is the case.

Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out
of
hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
way.

Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been
proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was dated by
this method to be over 300 million years old.
Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which
are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).

90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values
of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.


Many of the 'approved' formulae for the basis of alot of science (Einstein
and Newton) work better with values taken from Creationist research. e.g.
Light does not take millions of years to reach earth. Gravity bends light,
and it affects time. By using formula already 'approved' by the science
world this can be proved quite legitimately.

Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds
in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
list if I can).

--
Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.
-----------------------------------------

Adam has perfect genetic material.
Eve had perfect genetic material.

And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.

Though the reproduction process information is "copied" badly to the sperm
and eggs. This follows with entropy theory that everything is deteriorating
into maximum state of chaos.

Because two strands of dna are used to make the new human/animal. Then what
is corrupt in one strand is taken from the other. Hence - not everyone is
mutated. Certain corruptions will lose data from the dna forever
(corruptions in both strands of dna at same place). This will
produce a new animal without that instruction. Not an animal with a new
instruction.

The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
The same applies to animal species.

All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
that people took them in the wrong light.

There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.

Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
*common sense* eh?.

Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we
got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.

A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its
height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
years.

Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.

Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.

People researching genetic engineering in plants ( to produce super
tomatoes) are trying to find pure wild breeds full of genetic information
which they can store. When a new disease arrives on the scene which
threatens to wipe out all these super tomatoes, they will turn to the
genetic (more complete) material in the wild plants to re-derive through
breeding selection (human created natural selection) a new immune plant
which has a large yield.

The Irish potato famine occurred because the potatoes had been bred for
yield and by accident some disease fighting information had been bred out of
them also. Because no other breeds were available (discarded due to
innefficiency in crop turnout) all the "selected" potatoes died... and
caused the famine.

The more selected a species gets the more succeptible to disease until it
hits extinction.

Hundreds of species are becoming extinct not specifically because of us but
because of this degredation process which has occurred over time
( to me it was the introduction of sin which has caused it).

--

Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.

Remember that science is a tool that us humans have created, treat it like
such. A hammer can go rusty and get thrown out, so can theories. Evolution
is not immune.

Anything otherwise - to treat it like we know it all - is exactly the same as
wanting to be our own god and to prove that we don't need God.

This is extremely natural , it is what created sin in the first place - The
tree of knowledge and everything! :)

God is with us and keeps us strong - and we truly stand on the rock of ages.
:)

May God be with you all.


PS. I don't really want a 125 article long thread come from this atall. That
defeats the point of the whole issue. Mail me if you have any questions
instead.

PPS. I am going on holiday for a while so excuse me if there appears to be
no reply's for a bit.


--

Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)

______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)

`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.

Steven Carr

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:08:52 GMT, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East)
wrote :

>I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
>vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
>of interest to anyone involved.

<skip for length>


>Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
>--------------------------------------------------------

>All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
>contradictory to God's word.

The Pope believes in evolution. So do lots of Christians.
<skip>



>The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
>has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
>proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
>,for instance, is not a metaphor.

There is no overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood.
>--

>In 1980 a meeting between top scientists around the world decided to try and
>gather their evidence for the proof of evolutionary theory, they failed.
>There was no proof which showed evolution in action.

Name these scientists.
Name this conference.

<skip>

>Dinosaurs were around in biblical times ( meantioned in Joab as a creature
>with a cedar tree sized tail (diplodicus probably). Known as dragons by many
>early civilisations.

Really???

>Fossils can be formed in 50 years. A miners hat was found fossilised in a
>mine which was 50 years old.

>Why are there not any fossils created now?

There are. Even your previous sentence assumed that fossils can be
formed.

<skip>

>Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form
>horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
>video).
>All the top geologists agree that this is the case.

I've seen layers of rock. I've seen rock layers on top of other rock
layers.


>Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out
>of
>hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
>way.

Nonsense. The grand canyon was formed over a long period of time.

>Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been
>proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was dated by
>this method to be over 300 million years old.

Rock dating methods can be contaminated, but in general they are
pretty accurate.

>Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which
>are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
>thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).

Carbon 14 dating is not used to date the earth. There are ice cores
which are older than 10,000 years old.

>90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values
>of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
>adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.

Are these the scientists mentioned below who are God-fearing?

>Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds
>in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
>list if I can).

Are these the same scientists mentioned above, who are not rational?


>--
>Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.

>And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.

<skip>

>The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
>0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
>The same applies to animal species.

>All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
>be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
>that people took them in the wrong light.

>There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
>and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
>natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
>UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.

Sounds like a textbook case of evolution thru natural selection to me.

>Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
>*common sense* eh?.

Where then did Great Danes come from?

>Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we
>got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.

Breeders breed from mongrels! You'll have the Pedigree Club on you.

>A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its
>height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
>years.

>Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
>strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.

How can a pure strain be a mongrel?
2 animals do not have the genetic diversity that millions have.

>Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.

<skip>

>Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
>logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
>God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.

It seems like appalling ignorance to me.

<skip>


>`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
> the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

I like the strain of cynicism in Ecclesaistes.
.
Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
When morality is on your side, pound away at morality.
When facts are on your side, pound away at facts.
When neither is on your side, pound away at your opponent.


Robert Billing

unread,
Apr 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/2/96
to
In article <Dp8su...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:

> All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
> contradictory to God's word.

In the words of the immortal transcendent earwig "ear-wi-go-again". I
have lost count of the number of times that I have posted this.
There is *absoultely* *nothing* in Genesis that makes a
statement about evolution, for or against. People who claim to
be Christians *must* stop pretending that there is, as it is
causing rational people who are looking for the truth to turn
away from the gospel.

--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "A very close orbit" "How
Close?" "It actually shaves the surface. Our problem on Negrav is...
how to stop it being eaten by the black hole." The Unorthodox Engineers

Frank Lane

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
In article <Dp8su...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
>vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
>of interest to anyone involved.
>
>This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.
>
Oh dear! I wish you hadn't done this.

If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
evolutionists can find answers.

Now you've started another hare going on this endless argument and my
kill-file is getting full.

No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.

Still, at least it's only on uk.r.c so we won't get reams of abuse from the
US.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Love, Joy and Peace in Jesus
============================
la...@enterprise.net
http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Alan Zanker

unread,
Apr 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/3/96
to
ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:

>Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
>contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
>well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
>proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
>drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
>metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
>be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
>doubting waters.

Is honest doubt a bad thing? Why does disbelieving one part of a
generally trustworthy writing mean you've to disbelieve the lot -
don't you ever find 'good' textbooks contain mistakes?

>Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to.

(Sorry - can't resist (:-))



>If you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more
>strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
>men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
>that out eventually.

As I understand it 'faith' is trust in the saving power of God
revealed in Christ, and reliance on the Holy Spirit (along with - and
through - sizeable doses of common-sense, reason, tradition and human
experience) for guidance in everyday affairs - not a desperate attempt
to believe the impossible.

Alan
--
Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
Leeds |

Martin East

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
Steven Carr (ca...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:08:52 GMT, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East)
: wrote :

: >I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary
: >vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
: >of interest to anyone involved.

: <skip for length>


: >Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.
: >--------------------------------------------------------

: >All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
: >contradictory to God's word.

: The Pope believes in evolution. So do lots of Christians.
: <skip>
:
: >The truth is *very* simple and even the youngest child
: >has no problem with it, and God did say, be childlike. There is overwhelming
: >proof that Noah's flood did occur through rock samples + fossil layers and it
: >,for instance, is not a metaphor.

: There is no overwhelming evidence of Noah's flood.

What about the tremendous amount of fossils discovered in rock?

: >Why are there not any fossils created now?

Sorry, meant to say why is it not common for fossils to be seen getting
fossilised all over the place- animals + plants rot under normal
circumstances.


: >Rock (and hence fossil) layers do not form vertically over time. They form


: >horizontally. This has been proved by controlled experiment (seen the
: >video).
: >All the top geologists agree that this is the case.

: I've seen layers of rock. I've seen rock layers on top of other rock
: layers.

Yes, but have you thought of that old expt. in school where we shake up
different gradients of sand and let them settle? They settle according to
weight and particle size. Rock layers are formed from "inland" out to the
newest bit which is the shoreline. Shorelines are sloped showing this.
With pebbles at top, and sand at bottom that is how the gradiation is
achieved.


: >Canyons can be formed in an afternoon. e.g. A mud slide carved a canyon out


: >of
: >hard rock in one afternoon. The grand canyon was probably formed in the same
: >way.

: Nonsense. The grand canyon was formed over a long period of time.

I dont think so.

: >Rock dating methods are wildly inaccurate. Potassium Argon dating has been


: >proved wrong. A rock known in living memory to be 200 years old was
dated by : >this method to be over 300 million years old.

: Rock dating methods can be contaminated, but in general they are
: pretty accurate.

I dont think so.

: >Carbon 14 dating is flawed by its having too many variable components which


: >are unknown. ( Assuming the world is 10,000 years old the error margin on
: >thuis method is something which allows no accuracy whatsoever).

: Carbon 14 dating is not used to date the earth. There are ice cores
: which are older than 10,000 years old.

I dont think so. I believe in what God has written. The world is

: >90% of all possible known methods for dating the Solar Systems gave values


: >of its age of less than 10,000 years. The 10% that was left is what is
: >adopted by the Scientists. Obviously an extremely rational approach ??.

: Are these the scientists mentioned below who are God-fearing?

Yes.

: >Many of the world top Phd scientists are God fearing, being the best minds


: >in the world they must have something right! Newton was one... (will get a
: >list if I can).

: Are these the same scientists mentioned above, who are not rational?
: >--
: >Genetic theory not linked with Evolution.

: >And all animals created at that time also had perfect genetic material.

: <skip>

: >The actual difference between gentic material for all known human races is
: >0.012% - not very much. This includes all "mutations".
: >The same applies to animal species.

: >All known cases of "evolution in progress" have actually been shown just to
: >be natural selection. They were never argued otherwise actually. Its just
: >that people took them in the wrong light.

: >There always was a ddt resistant strain of mosquito, there always were black
: >and white moths. Just is different numbers according to the *fact* of
: >natural selection. That is why white people live in cooler countries like
: >UK. By mutation we have lost the ability to produce melanin in our skin.

: Sounds like a textbook case of evolution thru natural selection to me.

Natural selection exists - evolution does not.

: >Two poodles breed - you get a poodle but you will never get a great dane
: >*common sense* eh?.

: Where then did Great Danes come from?

Mongrels

: >Two mongrels breed - you may get a poodle or a great dane - this is how we


: >got poodles and great danes - breeders bred them.

: Breeders breed from mongrels! You'll have the Pedigree Club on you.

Probably. :)
I also think that its the Kennel Club!

: >A poodle will never *mutate* into a great dane because it has lost its


: >height instruction. This has been shown to be the case for hundreds of
: >years.

: >Noah's ark did not have to have *all* the animals on it, only the pure
: >strains (e.g. mongrels) which could breed to produce all the others.

: How can a pure strain be a mongrel?
: 2 animals do not have the genetic diversity that millions have.

More genetic material in a mongrel.

: >Its all very common sense. And it fits genetics perfectly.

: <skip>

: >Many of these things are really sketchy, only skimming the surface. Being a
: >logical sort of bloke (computer science and that) I feel very secure in
: >God's word. And will accept any challege put forward. I stand on the rock.

: It seems like appalling ignorance to me.

Fair enough. I think its accurate according to bible teaching.

: <skip>


: >`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
: > the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

: I like the strain of cynicism in Ecclesaistes.

Very cynical book.

--

Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science
: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)

______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)

`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;


the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.

Martin East

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
Alan Zanker (al...@bittern.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:

: >Note to Christians who believe that God used evoulution.


: >--------------------------------------------------------
: >
: >All Christians should really not believe in evoulution as fact as it is
: >contradictory to God's word. If you dilute out God's book Genesis saying, oh
: >well add a few years here there etc. then the whole of your faith can be
: >proved wrong by saying "oh well it must all be just a metaphor etc...blah
: >drivel" is sin a METAPHOR?, was the original sin of Adam and Eve just a
: >metaphor, then there is not point in Jesus then is there and there will not
: >be a Judgement day- carry on like this any you truly will be on really stormy
: >doubting waters.

: Is honest doubt a bad thing? Why does disbelieving one part of a


: generally trustworthy writing mean you've to disbelieve the lot -
: don't you ever find 'good' textbooks contain mistakes?

Aye, but to doubt what God said what happened in the beginning is a bit
dangerous, since the rest of what God says is based on it (extremely
strongly).

: >Do not argue with me about this, I've said all I need to.

: (Sorry - can't resist (:-))
:
: >If you as a Christian do not trust God to tell you the truth then you need more


: >strength of faith, pray for some. Do not believe what comes from the minds of
: >men over God's infinite mind. God says it like it was and we shall all find
: >that out eventually.

: As I understand it 'faith' is trust in the saving power of God


: revealed in Christ, and reliance on the Holy Spirit (along with - and
: through - sizeable doses of common-sense, reason, tradition and human
: experience) for guidance in everyday affairs - not a desperate attempt
: to believe the impossible.

Do you not trust God to tell you the truth about the beginning?
I trust he has.


: Alan


: --
: Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
: Leeds |

Martin East

unread,
Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96
to
Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <Dp8su...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >I have not read all the arguments ( lengthy as they are ) on evolutionary

: >vs. creationism but from what I've read I think that the following would be
: >of interest to anyone involved.
: >
: >This article points out some of the problems with the evolutionary theory.
: >
: Oh dear! I wish you hadn't done this.

: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
: evolutionists can find answers.

Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)

: Now you've started another hare going on this endless argument and my
: kill-file is getting full.

Sorry, will delete stuff pretty soon.

: No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.

I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
different point of view!

If we as Christians do not trust the truth then how are we going to
witness effectively?

Frank Lane

unread,
Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96
to
In article <DpyI0...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:

>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
>: evolutionists can find answers.
>
>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
>

Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!

>: No-one is going to convince anyone on this argument.
>
>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
>different point of view!
>

Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
fundamentalist Christians.

>If we as Christians do not trust the truth then how are we going to
>witness effectively?
>

But is a crudely literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - 3 *necessarily* "the
truth". Did Moses, or God, set out to write a scientific treatise in advance.
Is not creation itself part of God's revelation (since God does not lie) and
can we not accept the possibility that creation tells some of its own story.

I've been flamed by the evolutionists so much that I can now take a bit of
flack from my brethren (and sisters) if necessary.

I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists
and some of God's people.

Frank

Steven Carr

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
None of the following is to be taken as critical of Mr. Lane, who I
respect and who is a more than reasonable person.

on Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:42, la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane) wrote :

>In article <DpyI0...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
>>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:

>>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
>>: evolutionists can find answers.
>>
>>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
>>
>Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
>rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
>entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!

I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
'top scientists'.

>>
>>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a
>>different point of view!
>>
>Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
>(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
>[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
>fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
>fundamentalist Christians.

The situation on talk.origins reflects the situation in America where
science teaching is under systematic attack by people who are prepared
to misquote, distort and downright lie to discredit evolution. They do
this to promote Creationism, which was debunked last century.

Naturally, the flame level is rather high. It ought to be noted that
many people on t.o defending evolution are Christians.

>I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists
>and some of God's people.

I've found that it is almost invariable that Creationist quotes are
misquotes and their facts are wrong.Not only are they wrong, but
usually they were debunked years ago. If pointing out distortion is
'flaming', then flaming has to be done. It does, though, get a bit
expasperating pointing out *one more time* about how exploding
Bomardier beetles do not explode, the Grand Canyon is very old, C-14
dating is not used for fossils etc. etc.

Paul Wheeler

unread,
Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96
to
Frank of la...@enterprise.net said

> I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some
> scientists and some of God's people.

Well said, I`m sure you are right.

Tony Wheeler


Martin East

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
Steven Carr (ca...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: None of the following is to be taken as critical of Mr. Lane, who I

: respect and who is a more than reasonable person.

: on Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:42, la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane) wrote :

: >In article <DpyI0...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:
: >>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:

: >>: If the debunking was done in 1980 there has been 16 years in which the
: >>: evolutionists can find answers.
: >>
: >>Unfortunately they haven't found any (to the best of my knowledge)! :)
: >>
: >Of course they've found answers. They've been posting them at an alarming
: >rate. The fact that you don't accept their answers is a different matter
: >entirely. I never said you'ld be convinced!

: I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
: 'top scientists'.

I'm still waiting to ask my friend for the details.

: >>
: >>I have managed to certainly get my uni non-christian friends to see a

: >>different point of view!
: >>
: >Ah, but Martin, we're not dealing with your uni friends here. We're dealing
: >(or at least we were when this was being discussed in talk.origins as well
: >[which was the case when I posted the quoted message)] with a group of
: >fundamentalist evolutionists which is much worse than trying to convince
: >fundamentalist Christians.

: The situation on talk.origins reflects the situation in America where
: science teaching is under systematic attack by people who are prepared
: to misquote, distort and downright lie to discredit evolution. They do
: this to promote Creationism, which was debunked last century.

This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
Evolution in favour of God's word.

If There are false Christians preaching Creationism it discredits
us all. We should not allow ourselves to be swayed into the junky
evolutionary scheme by who supports what. Don't defend evolution, kill
it off! Its what the church should have done when Darwin first brought
out the stuff. The signs of the times don't look too good do they? :)

But no the church tried to fit the bible around science instead of
science around the bible.

: Naturally, the flame level is rather high. It ought to be noted that


: many people on t.o defending evolution are Christians.

: >I'm not convinced that science and God are in conflict. Just some scientists

: >and some of God's people.

: I've found that it is almost invariable that Creationist quotes are


: misquotes and their facts are wrong.Not only are they wrong, but

Are the facts they misquote from the Bible?

: usually they were debunked years ago. If pointing out distortion is


: 'flaming', then flaming has to be done. It does, though, get a bit

Surely flaming is a 'aggressive' manoevre (not quite sure of etiquette)?
Can we express Jesus' love by doing this?

: expasperating pointing out *one more time* about how exploding


: Bomardier beetles do not explode, the Grand Canyon is very old, C-14
: dating is not used for fossils etc. etc.

: ..
: Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com


: When morality is on your side, pound away at morality.
: When facts are on your side, pound away at facts.
: When neither is on your side, pound away at your opponent.

I admit I know little detail about Creationism ( acording to science
today), but I rely on God's Word for the truth.

God Bless.

Robert Billing

unread,
Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96
to
net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 17

In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:

> This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
> only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
> YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
> Evolution in favour of God's word.

With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
*nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment

about evolution, for or against.

--

I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal

lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "How strange-
indeed, how perverse- to weep for a machine! Even one with as complex
and temperamental a personality as the Mark I..." Arthur C Clarke

Martin East

unread,
Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96
to
Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>

: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: Lines: 17

: In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:

: > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: > Evolution in favour of God's word.

: With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
: favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: about evolution, for or against.

To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

Martin East

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: : : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : : > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: : : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : : > Evolution in favour of God's word.

: : To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed


: : before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

: Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man
: would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit
: were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
: live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
: the judgment of sin as well.

: Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
: world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which
^
But there is :)
Satan's prevelance in the world is growing, he uses media to distract people
why not science?

Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.

All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
all sciences) is found.

Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
on the
world we live in.

Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
actually out there.

Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
time frame too (point in space) - surely.

Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000 yrs old.

Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.

Anyway this stuff, it makes me stronger in my faith.
And praise God for that.
Gets away from the world which brings me down... :(
Put myself in my place.

I find it helps me witness too.

Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
One theory should not really be put above another. I suppose I am
wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
But I suppose
the only real thing which really matters
is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now

: points to the great age of the world but so do a whole host of other
: sicences such as geology and physics. Did God really create the universe
: 6000 years ago and make it look 5 billion years old. What about stella
: evolution, the red-shift and cosmic background radiation. Light only
: travels at a finite speed. So if we are looking at a distant galaxy, say
: 2 million light years away, then the light left that galaxy 2 million
: years ago. As Hubble can see galaxies MUCH further away than this then the
: light left them many millions of years ago, again suggesting that the
: universe is ancient. Now, not for a minute am I suggesting that this means
: that everything came about by chance. It is a very important part of the
: Christian faith that God created Heaven and Earth. I AM NOT DISPUTING
: THIS. All I am saying is that the evidence is overwelming that it happened
: a long time ago - far more than 6000 years as creationists claim.
: Considering the vast fossil record (and fossils take a LOT more than 6000
: years to form - they're made out of rock not bone) which shows an
: evolutionary path then some sort of evolution must have taken place unless
: God (or the devil ?) is playing a very large deception on us. Evolutionary
: theory may have its faults but the evidence for the occurance of an
: evolutionary process is undeniable.

: One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
: opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
: chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
: Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
: due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
: possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1. There is actually a THIRD
: creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created
: the Earth after defeating a choas monster called Rahab (some texts
: Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
: - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
: don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
: somewhere in Isiah.

: I believe that ultimately it all comes down to your view of the bible. Do

True. But I find the rest hangs together better if I believe it as it is
written - six days Adam+Eve.

: you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
: or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
: inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
: there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
: bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
: was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
: their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
: detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
: taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
: author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
: interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:

: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
: against the rock".

: This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
: the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
: would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
: that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
: Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
: Yet both quotes are from the bible !

: As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
: not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
: very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
: literally.

I think head over heels is probably a better descripton of how I feel :)
But I am not mindless!

: Peace in Christ

: Dave Spence

Dave Spence

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:

: Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: : Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: : Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: : X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: : Lines: 17

: : In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:

: : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : > Evolution in favour of God's word.

: : With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in


: : favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: : *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: : about evolution, for or against.

: To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed


: before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man
would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit
were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
the judgment of sin as well.

Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the
world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which

you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:

"Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
against the rock".

This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
Yet both quotes are from the bible !

As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
literally.

Gareth Gillingham

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

I think the only relavent comment is the Pope's admision about Galileo
"the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"
as this shows the diffrent statigies of the two groups. ie the Bible WHY
in easy to understand terms for Gods people then, scientists HOW does
this work.

Gareth Gillingham University of sussex mp...@central.sussex.ac.uk
"I'll never be cruel to an electron in a particle acclerator again"
The Doctor(4) The Pirate Planet

Dave Spence

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Organization: The University of York, UK
Distribution:

Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
<SNIP>

: : Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the


: : world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: : must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which

: ^


: But there is :)
: Satan's prevelance in the world is growing, he uses media to distract people
: why not science?

: Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
: limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
: what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.

Come on. If we cannot draw conclusion based on our observations then we
cannot be sure of ANYTHING. You could not even be sure whether you were
reading the bible correctly. Besides, computers and all other modern
inventions have been created due to science. Do we really only accept
science when it suits us (e.g. to use a computer) and completely snub
it when it appears to contradict a literal interpretation of something in
the bible ?

: All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the

: unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
: all sciences) is found.

: Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
: another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
: on the
: world we live in.

By that argument one might wonder about the Earth being a sphere. Perhaps
it really is flat but repeats itself !

: Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all


: fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
: actually out there.

No, the value of the speed of light is a fact and has been scientifically
proven.

: Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make


: light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
: time frame too (point in space) - surely.


Gravitational lensing is an accepted fact and has been observed. An
extremely large mass distorts space and the light appears to be bent as it
'follows' the distortion. The best effects are seen on far away galaxies
which have been lensed by clusters of galaxies inbetween them and the
Earth. The problem is that you need a large gravitational mass INBETWEEN the
source and the observer. There are many stars and galaxies which don't
have any large masses directly between them and us to cause any
significant gravitational lensing. Besides that, the sorts of changes
necessary to make objects, say 100 million light years away, appear 1000
light years ways could not occur as the path differences caused are much
too small. Besides, there are other methods for calculating galactic
distances such as Cephid variables. Furthermore, I believe that many stars
in our own galaxy can have there distances verified by measuring their
apparant positions at different times of the year and constructing a
triangle. As our galaxy is 150 000 light years across you can see that
there are plenty of stars which gave off light well before 6000 years ago.

: Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks
: 6000 yrs old.

: Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
: Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
: science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.

No, fossils aren't the only way of dating rocks.

: Anyway this stuff, it makes me stronger in my faith.

: And praise God for that.
: Gets away from the world which brings me down... :(
: Put myself in my place.

Fair enough. I will agree that God created Heaven and Earth and I also
believe that knowing that helps to remind me that He has it all under
control and that there is meaning in this sometimes meaningless world

: I find it helps me witness too.

: Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
: One theory should not really be put above another. I suppose I am
: wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
: mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
: send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
: others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
: renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
: But I suppose
: the only real thing which really matters
: is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now

YES ! ABSOLUTELY ! I do agree with you that the only thing that really
matters is our faith in Jesus and knowing that He died for us. Compared to
that creation vs. evolution is just mere detail.

John Chapman

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes


>
>Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
>One theory should not really be put above another.

There speaks a non scientist if ever there was one. Science is about
describing systematically and making predictions based upon that
description. What Science manages to do quite neatly is to make
predictions which can be shown to be accurate, or at least as accurate
as is required within a given domain and a given circumstance. The
problem inherent in creationism as with all similar esoteric theories is
that they have no power to predict. A theory has value only if it can be
used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of
prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
track record.

>I suppose I am
>wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
>mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
>send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
>others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
>renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
>But I suppose
>the only real thing which really matters
>is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now

I have never had any problem with a conflict between Science and Faith,
your problem is a lack of understanding of science not of faith. My
problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
way that I do not believe science as literal truth.

--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk

i...@ellijay.com

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote:

>Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:

<snip gobs>


>: you believe it fell from Heaven and is completely and utterly infallible
>: or do you believe that it was written by real people (albeit divinely
>: inspired ones) and has the limitations that these people brought to it,
>: there own preconceptions and limited scientific knowledge ? After all the
>: bible is not an all seeing, all knowing oracle that fell from Heaven. It
>: was written over thousands of years by many different authors each with
>: their own understanding and unique experience of God. This does not
>: detract from it's authority but what it does mean is that insisting on
>: taking every passage literally we can actually miss the point which the
>: author was trying to make or, worse still, obtain a bizare and extreme
>: interpretation. How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:

>: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
>: against the rock".

>: This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
>: the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it.

The Psalmist certainly did: it is a song of prophecy against Babylon
(the Israelites were held captive there, remember) and it means just what
it says: Happy shall he (the Medes and Persians, under Cyrus) be who takes...
etc. Those folks were'nt known for their kindness, you know. They probably
were pretty happy when they overran the fortified city of Babylon without
much of a struggle!
Please read the entire Psalm. Its meaning will be clear.

>;Yet how many of us


>: would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
>: that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
>: Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
>: Yet both quotes are from the bible !

So is this one: "There is no God".Psalm 14:1
Again, please read the whole thing.

*************************************************************
The opinions expressed are mine. They are also my employer's.
They would be everybody's if everybody weren't so darn dumb!
*************************************************************

Paul Johnson

unread,
Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96
to

In article <DqExH...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

>To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
>before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

OK. Try this on for size:

According to the bible, only humans have souls. So at some point our
ape-like ancestors either developed sufficiently to become suitable
vessels for a soul, or "soulfulness" developed as a consequence of
intelligence and emotions. Pick either, it doesn't matter.

So now we have the first humans, who promptly committed sin (being
only human). They were therefore the first (sinful) humans to
die. It was *human* death that didn't exist before original sin.

IIRC, this is how C.S. Lewis dealt with this issue.

Paul.

--
Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.


Alan Zanker

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>My problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
>way that I do not believe science as literal truth.

That's an interesting way of putting it, but I'm curious as to why
it's a problem. A story can give us significant insights into the
human condition without being literally true. Shakespeare's Hamlet and
the story of the fall (or should it be the rise?) of humanity in
Genesis 3 are good examples.

John Chapman

unread,
Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96
to

In article <3181c5b2...@news.demon.co.uk>, Alan Zanker
<al...@bittern.demon.co.uk> writes

>John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
>>way that I do not believe science as literal truth.
>
>That's an interesting way of putting it, but I'm curious as to why
>it's a problem. A story can give us significant insights into the
>human condition without being literally true. Shakespeare's Hamlet and
>the story of the fall (or should it be the rise?) of humanity in
>Genesis 3 are good examples.

Its not a problem to me but I thought it might be a problem to the
original poster who appeared to believe in the bible as literal truth. I
agree with you that the bible contains stories which give both an
insight into the human condition and into the relationship between God
and man using imagery and myth to make a point.
--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk

Frank Lane

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:

>One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.

Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY
support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really support
creationism"?

Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.

Frank


Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
*************************************
Frank Lane
la...@enterprise.net
http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
*************************************

Frank Lane

unread,
Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96
to

In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:

>One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.

Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY

Alan Zanker

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

John Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Its not a problem to me but I thought it might be a problem to the
>original poster who appeared to believe in the bible as literal truth. I
>agree with you that the bible contains stories which give both an
>insight into the human condition and into the relationship between God
>and man using imagery and myth to make a point.

Thanks! Point taken.

Dave Spence

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to


24p$s...@news.enterprise.net>


Organization: The University of York, UK
Distribution:

Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:

: >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my


: >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.

: Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't
: REALLY support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really
: support creationism"?

YES ! I see you point. Your rewording is actually much closer to
the point I was trying to make. I think I made a bit of a gaffe there !

: Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The

: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.

Absolutely. If you take a view of the creation story as being allegorical,
you can gain a lot from reading it. In other words, just because it can't
be taken literally doesn't mean that it hasn't any theological
significance. In fact it has GREAT significance as it sets up the
relationship between us and God. The fact that God took longer than 144
hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
was the main point of Genesis 1.

Peace,

Dave Spence

Paul Johnson

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

>Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely
>limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
>what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.

Maybe science is full of holes, but its still the best tool we have. Both
ignorance and religion have a very poor history as the basis for decision
making.

Leaders of a number of religions (including Christianity) have told
followers to march on an enemy much better armed than they were because
God would protect them. Take a look at the history of the Crusades
for some examples.

>All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the
>unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
>all sciences) is found.

>Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
>another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
>on the world we live in.

You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
is blue, but I don't know everything.

>Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all
>fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
>actually out there.

I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say here. This vagueness
makes arguing against it like trying to stab fog.

>Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make
>light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
>time frame too (point in space) - surely.

Umm. Surely not. Please try to learn what relativity *actually* says
before trying to use it in support of your position.

> Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000
> yrs old.

Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
tell?

>Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.
>Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
>science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.

Sorry? I'm not familiar with the relative scale law. And dating is not
as circular as you suppose. There are a network of dating methods, all
of which re-inforce each other, and all of which ultimately rest on
basic physics which can be observed today. Carbon dating, dendrochronology,
diffusion of water into chipped flint, all these things give a consistent
picture of the age of the earth, and all say it is a few billion years old.

>Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
>One theory should not really be put above another.

I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
is in fact blue.

In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
waiting.

David Aldridge

unread,
Apr 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/29/96
to

Just a point,

Dave Spence wrote:
> One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
> opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis
> chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
> Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
> due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
> possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1.

As I understand it, the Genesis 2 story is an explanation in more detail
of specific aspects of Genesis 1. Genesis 2 actually says that when God
brought man to the garden, he brought the animals he "had" made to Adam
for naming, and no suitable "helper" could be found. i.e., the animals
were pre-existant to Adam. This *is* consistent IMO. That is not to say
that I think the Genesis passage is necessarily the "literal truth", but
it *does* seem to be consistent.

> There is actually a THIRD
> creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created
> the Earth after defeating a choas monster called Rahab (some texts
> Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
> - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
> don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
> somewhere in Isiah.

I'd be interested more in this story if the bible gave it in more detail.
However, I can't find much there. Can you find the references and give
them along with your interpretations. It seems to me that the Ps 89 passage
doesn't refer to creation when it speaks of Rahab, but just of the might
of God to be able crush some (fearful to the humans) opponent.

>How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
>
> "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
> against the rock".
>
> This hardly captures the Christian message of love and forgiveness, yet
> the Psalmist will have had his reasons for writing it. Yet how many of us
> would insist on us using this as a model for a Christian life and state
> that if we do not follow it we are denying God's word and are not true
> Christians ? Well, many creationists say that about the Genesis story.
> Yet both quotes are from the bible !

I think this (as with many problem quotes) is taken out of context, and if
you read the whole Psalm you find that this attitude is not what is being
advocated as a general way to live. In the same way, the Genesis story
(as a whole) hangs together very well and can be used for lots of different
teaching points. I don't think it should be treated as a scientific
treatise, but then if God is God, he could have done it in the literal way
that the creationist camp argue. I also don't think evolution (abiogenesis,
evolution, natural selection, etc) by chance is a reasonable alternative
without God to start, maintain and guide the process. Either way, God is
central to my thinking of creation, which should be the main point.

> As a final point, consider the quote "Christ came to take away our sins -
> not our minds". I don't know who made this quote but I think that it is
> very poignant when considering if we MUST take the creation story
> literally.

Agreed.

David
--
David C. Aldridge
email: d...@ray.npl.co.uk / emp...@brunel.ac.uk
WWW: http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~empgdca/
If God had meant us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <DqExH...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

: >To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: >before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

: OK. Try this on for size:

: According to the bible, only humans have souls. So at some point our
: ape-like ancestors either developed sufficiently to become suitable
: vessels for a soul, or "soulfulness" developed as a consequence of
: intelligence and emotions. Pick either, it doesn't matter.

: So now we have the first humans, who promptly committed sin (being
: only human). They were therefore the first (sinful) humans to
: die. It was *human* death that didn't exist before original sin.

But this explaination is complicated. The Bible tells us that the truth
is simple.

: IIRC, this is how C.S. Lewis dealt with this issue.

It does not mean that he is correct.
I's rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.

: Paul.

: --

: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:

: >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my


: >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.

: Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't REALLY
: support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really support
: creationism"?

: Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The

: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.

True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.
I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.

Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which
undermines the Gospel comes from Satan. Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
undermine the church. That was a great downfall of the church, and it has never
recovered to this day.

: Frank


: Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
: *************************************
: Frank Lane
: la...@enterprise.net
: http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
: *************************************

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

: >Science is a tool which we use to help us in this world. Our extremely


: >limited understanding cannot allow us to make rash decisions based on
: >what we see as fact, because there are so many holes in it all.

: Maybe science is full of holes, but its still the best tool we have. Both


: ignorance and religion have a very poor history as the basis for decision
: making.

: Leaders of a number of religions (including Christianity) have told
: followers to march on an enemy much better armed than they were because
: God would protect them. Take a look at the history of the Crusades
: for some examples.

: >All these evolutionary arguments can only really stand when the

: >unification theory which links all the existing theories together (from
: >all sciences) is found.

: >Until we have this complete knowledge about how things relate to one
: >another it will be extremely difficult to make *any* factual judgement
: >on the world we live in.

: You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know

: everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
: is blue, but I don't know everything.

We can make relative statements : the sky is blue to you. But what
about a snake? is it blue to a snake?


: >Such things as the speed of light argument etc, fossils and stuff all


: >fall into this easy to define category as mere conjectures of what is
: >actually out there.

: I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say here. This vagueness


: makes arguing against it like trying to stab fog.

: >Gravity - for instance has the power to distort time , and so make


: >light bend. What we see we cannot believe unless we view it from another
: >time frame too (point in space) - surely.

: Umm. Surely not. Please try to learn what relativity *actually* says


: before trying to use it in support of your position.

: > Why does the world look 5 billion yrs old? It Doesn't, it looks 6000
: > yrs old.

: Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
: tell?

How can you tell they are 5 billion yrs. I stand by my Bible and what it
says, the world was created in 6 days, not 6 billion years.

: >Fossils date rocks <-> Rocks date fossils. - A little catch 22.

: >Dating methods are scientifically proven to be false, by the laws which
: >science approves. The main one being the relative scale one.

: Sorry? I'm not familiar with the relative scale law. And dating is not


: as circular as you suppose. There are a network of dating methods, all
: of which re-inforce each other, and all of which ultimately rest on
: basic physics which can be observed today. Carbon dating, dendrochronology,
: diffusion of water into chipped flint, all these things give a consistent
: picture of the age of the earth, and all say it is a few billion years old.

: >Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.


: >One theory should not really be put above another.

: I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal

: consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
: is in fact blue.

But what does God say, he created it.

: In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000


: year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: waiting.

In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.

Creation is about God, and God is about life!

I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I want to
get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the world,
and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
... thats what really matters.


: --
: Paul Johnson | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
: +44 1245 242244 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
: Work: <paul.j...@gecm.com> | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
: Home: <Pa...@treetop.demon.co.uk> | standards, all different.

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

Dave Spence (djs...@york.ac.uk) wrote:


: 24p$s...@news.enterprise.net>


: Organization: The University of York, UK
: Distribution:

: Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
: : In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
: : djs...@york.ac.uk (Dave Spence) wrote:

: : >One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my


: : >opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible.

: : Would you be prepared to reword that statement to "creationISM doesn't
: : REALLY support the bible." or even better "The Bible does not really
: : support creationism"?

: YES ! I see you point. Your rewording is actually much closer to


: the point I was trying to make. I think I made a bit of a gaffe there !

: : Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The

: : religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
: : that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
: : biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
: : Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.

: Absolutely. If you take a view of the creation story as being allegorical,


: you can gain a lot from reading it. In other words, just because it can't
: be taken literally doesn't mean that it hasn't any theological
: significance. In fact it has GREAT significance as it sets up the
: relationship between us and God. The fact that God took longer than 144
: hours to create the world does not alter the fact that He created it which
: was the main point of Genesis 1.

But it dilutes the power and the absolute soverignty of God, this is
what Satan wants, it will make us weaker if we accept Satan's deceptions.

God wants us to believe what is written not what us humans think!


: Peace,

: Dave Spence

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to Dave Spence

In article <4lq933$r...@netty.york.ac.uk> you wrote:

: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Robert Billing (uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : : net> <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: : : Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:47:56 GMT
: : : Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
: : : X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
: : : Lines: 17

: : : In article <Dq9Ms...@cee.hw.ac.uk> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk "Martin East" writes:

: : : > This is truly a great shame. I am new to this newsgroup, and also I have
: : : > only known Jesus for a couple of years. Recently I have been attending
: : : > YPM + Church (Charlotte Baptist Chapel) - we love Christ, and we discard
: : : > Evolution in favour of God's word.

: : : With all due respect, you appear to have discarded God's word in
: : : favour of a conjectural interpretation. There is *absolutely*
: : : *nothing* in the bible to justify your making *any* comment
: : : about evolution, for or against.

: : To be honest, though, I find it somewhat hard to believe that death existed
: : before man's original sin, which is what evolution has to say.

: Actually I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that man

I know I've already replied but...

The evidence that I put forward is Jesus. He lives forever.

: would have lived forever even if he had not sinned. Have you read the bit


: were God states that He doesn't want them to eat "of the tree of life and
: live forever". Furthermore what about animals, they die - are they under
: the judgment of sin as well.

Yes, it is all the symptoms of the fall, so is rape, fear, hatred, etc.

: Have you ever considered that if evolution is complete rubbish and the


: world really was created in 6-days and is only 6000 years old then there
: must be some MAJOR deception going on. It is not just evolution which

Satan is not stupid, he will use every device at his disposal to trick
humans. Evolution is a clever plan which makes us question the truth in the
Bible - Satan is deciving many.

I am blowing the trumpet to alert the city :)

: One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my


: opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis

The Bible supports creation...

{other long stuff cut}

Martin East

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

John Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
: writes
:
: >

: >Science should not be lauded as fact. They are all just theories.
: >One theory should not really be put above another.

: There speaks a non scientist if ever there was one. Science is about


: describing systematically and making predictions based upon that
: description. What Science manages to do quite neatly is to make
: predictions which can be shown to be accurate, or at least as accurate
: as is required within a given domain and a given circumstance. The
: problem inherent in creationism as with all similar esoteric theories is
: that they have no power to predict. A theory has value only if it can be

Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
surely thats
a pretty good prediction.

: used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of


: prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
: track record.

And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
of prediction also!

: >I suppose I am

: >wrong to push creationism. I just wanted to give others the peace of
: >mind I find I get with this. I cannot believe that Jesus would
: >send me to church to knock down my faith, only to build me up. Many
: >others who I have met (I think all) think similarly and I enjoy
: >renewed strength from what I have come into contact with.
: >But I suppose
: >the only real thing which really matters
: >is that we definately know is that Jesus is alive now

: I have never had any problem with a conflict between Science and Faith,

: your problem is a lack of understanding of science not of faith. My


: problem is that I do not believe the bible as literal truth in the same
: way that I do not believe science as literal truth.

:

Does it not make everything in your faith a bit tennuous though (bad spelling)

: --
: John Chapman
: jo...@purley.demon.co.uk

Steven Carr

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

on Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:29, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk (Martin East) wrote :

>Steven Carr (ca...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:

>: I'm still waiting for details of this conference and details of these
>: 'top scientists'.

>I'm still waiting to ask my friend for the details.

Any word yet on this conference in 1980 where evolution was debunked
by top scientists?


Paul Wright

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

In article <Dqq2w...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>Frank Lane (la...@enterprise.net) wrote:
>: Creation, after all, is about the statement that the world was made. The
>: religious view of creation is that it was made by God. The Bible does support
>: that. It is creationism - a system of doctrine that declares from certain
>: biblical texts that creation took 144 hours - that is the major problem for
>: Christians who also happen to accept some or all of the findings of science.

>True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.


>I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
>truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.

Yes, but science is not a conspiracy against God, as you seem to
suggestin some of your postings. Some scientists are Christians, some
aren't. Nothing is proved by quoting numbers on this, either for or
against Christianity, or for or against Science.

>Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver?

Yes.

>Then you must agree that anything which undermines the Gospel comes
>from Satan.

Not sure really, I think he'd approve of the idea of undermining but
I don't know how he works so the idea "he is directly involved in all
undermining of the gospel" is not something I can be sure of
agreeing with. If by "comes from Satan" you mean he approves, then I
agree.

>Evoulution is a clever plan, it was
>also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to
>undermine the church.

Buried him under pillar supporting the roof did they? There's
Satanic cunning for you. Better get the builders in.

Seriously, the Gospel is not concerned with the method of creation:
it is the good news that Christ died for us and was raised. IMHO
evolution can say nothing to undermine this.

I don't really know much about evolution as a theory but the
cosmological evidence for an old universe is quite convincing, and is
in keeping with theories tested by experiment. It is of course
possible that the universe was created to appear old but I don't see
why God would play this sort of trick on humans. If he has given us
the ability to find things out about his universe, why would he put
this great big tripwire across the path of this ability? Einstein
wrote that God is subtle but not malicious and I tend to agree with
him.

But having said that, I could be wrong. My point is that it doesn't
make any difference to the message of the gospel either way.

>: Frank

>Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science

Paul

>`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
> the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

"Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study tires
the body." :-)

PS Long signatures are considered impolite.

--
Paul Wright, Churchill College, Cambridge | NatSci 1B Advanced Physics
http://tickle.chu.cam.ac.uk/~pw201/ | pw...@hermes.cam.ac.uk, FFPGP

K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk> <4m1sdo$e...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>

Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: : In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...


: : In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000


: : year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: : and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: : waiting.

: In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
: came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.

Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?

Great Evangelist he may be. Creationist he may be.

But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
methods indicate a young earth? If 51% of dating methods indicated a young
earth you can be sure scientists would be talking about the uncertainty of
the age of the earth. If 75% indicated a younng earth, the scientists
would be talking about the probability of a young earth and some dating
anomalies.

When an evangelist tells me about the Bible I am more likely to believe
him and if I am not sure, I take his statements as true unless I have good
reason not to.

When an evangelist talks about science my reaction is likely to be the
opposite. When an evangelist talks about scientific proof that science got
it wrong

Chorus

I don't believe it.

Kathy HH


Paul Wheeler

unread,
May 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/1/96
to

> ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says

> It does not mean that he is correct.
> I's rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.

Perhaps you mean "what your teachers have told you God says". I`d sooner
trust CS Lewis than your teachers myself. Though I wouldn`t take either
of them totally uncritically `as gospel`. That would be idolatry.

Tony Wheeler

Dave Spence

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

David Aldridge wrote

>Just a point,

>Dave Spence wrote:
>> One of the main problems with 'creation vs. evolution' is that, in my
>> opinion, creation doesn't REALLY support the bible. If you read Genesis

>> chapter 1 you will see where God creates the animals and then man. In
>> Genesis 2:18 He creates man first and then the animals as helpers. This is
>> due to the fact that Genesis 2 is taken from a different creation story,
>> possibly an earlier one than in Genesis 1.

>As I understand it, the Genesis 2 story is an explanation in more detail
>of specific aspects of Genesis 1. Genesis 2 actually says that when God
>brought man to the garden, he brought the animals he "had" made to Adam
>for naming, and no suitable "helper" could be found. i.e., the animals
>were pre-existant to Adam. This *is* consistent IMO. That is not to say
>that I think the Genesis passage is necessarily the "literal truth", but
>it *does* seem to be consistent.

Fair point. Here's the quote;

Genesis 2:18-19 (RSV) "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man
should be alone, I will make him a helper fit for him'. So out of the ground
the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,
and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever
the man called every living creature that was its name".

I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see
that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
this passage God made man first and then the animals.

>> There is actually a THIRD
>> creation story that was held by the ancient Hebrews where God created

>> the Earth after defeating a chaos monster called Rahab (some texts


>> Leviathan). There is only the barest traces of the this story in the bible
>> - see Psalm 89 and Job 23. I'm not sure if they're the exact chapters - I
>> don't have a bible on me at the mo'. There is also a trace of this story
>> somewhere in Isiah.

>I'd be interested more in this story if the bible gave it in more detail.
>However, I can't find much there. Can you find the references and give
>them along with your interpretations. It seems to me that the Ps 89 passage
>doesn't refer to creation when it speaks of Rahab, but just of the might
>of God to be able crush some (fearful to the humans) opponent.

No, there isn't much of it left in the Bible. I think theologically, the
ancient Hebrews didn't hold it in high asteem, as a creature powerful to
fight a war against God would have created theological problems for a
strict monotheistic religion such as theirs. Afterall, as far as I'm aware
it was only a myth and nothing to take too seriously. I stumbled across
this story in a couple of books I read:

Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement
- Paul Fiddes.

Escaping from Fundamentalism - James Barr (SCM Press)

The story of Rahab is described in much better detail in these two books.
The latter is still in print and has a whole chapter devoted to the
subject of creation and evolution from a biblical perspective. It is quite
interesting and illuminating. Fiddes' book describes the tale much better
but I'm not sure whether it is still in print - I borrowed the copy I have
from a friend here at York. It is (as the title suggests) primarily a book
on the atonement but goes into reasonable detail about the story of Rahab
- far more than Barr's book. If you are interested in it, and need to know
the publisher, email me and I will find out for you as I don't know it off
the top of my head.

>>How many of us actually take Psalm 137.9 literally:
>>
>> "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and bashes them
>> against the rock".
>>

<SNIP>

>I think this (as with many problem quotes) is taken out of context, and if
>you read the whole Psalm you find that this attitude is not what is being
>advocated as a general way to live.

I agree (Even though, it hardly brings to mind ideas of love and
forgiveness, even when taken with the rest of the Psalm, but I take your
point). The point I was trying to make, though, was that by insisting on a
literal interpretation on everything in the Bible, you can achieve some
very erroneous results. I pointed out some weeks ago that I had seen some
Christians justify the holocaust, taking quotes from the Bible out of
context - read Joshua, for example (sorry for treading over old ground
here, folks). The point I tried to make was that not all passages in the
Bible have equal theological significance, for example:

I mentioned Ezekiel20:25-26;

"Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by
which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very
gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might
horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord."

Compare the above to:

John1:14

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth;
we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father"; or

John3:16

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever
believes in him should not perish but have eternal life".

If we truly take the Bible literally, word for word, as if God dictated it
to the writers, as so many proponents of creationism say they do, then we
must take each passage on equal value. This is not a problem for me as I
do not hold to a fundametalist interpretation of scripture (not that you
wouldn't have guessed !). The point is, though, that some parts of the
Bible have a far greater significance than others. That does not mean that
they are void of theological value but that they don't impart as fuller
picture as others. Taking this point to the Genesis story, I believe that
it has profound significance but we don't need to take it literally in the
sense that we need to take John3:16 literally to appreciate this
significance.


>In the same way, the Genesis story
>(as a whole) hangs together very well and can be used for lots of different
>teaching points. I don't think it should be treated as a scientific
>treatise, but then if God is God, he could have done it in the literal way
>that the creationist camp argue. I also don't think evolution
>(abiogenesis,
>evolution, natural selection, etc) by chance is a reasonable alternative
>without God to start, maintain and guide the process. Either way, God is
>central to my thinking of creation, which should be the main point.

Couldn't agree more with you here !

To sum up, I agree with you on nearly all of the points you made here.
What I have being trying to show is that, by always insisting on a literal
interpretation of scripture, we can often get the wrong message or miss it
altogether. I don't believe, for a minute, that believing in creationism
would give you an erroneous impression of God or would harm your chances
of salvation. What I would say is that NOT taking it literally does not
mean you are not a Christian which I have heard in the past - although not
on THIS newsgroup, thank goodness!

I hope you don't take this posting as an attack on the Bible as that is not
what I intended, so forgive me if it came out that way.

Peace in Christ

Dave Spence

===============================================================================
David J. Spence = Visit the Christis Web
Postgraduate = Page
Department of Physics = http://www.york.ac.uk/~socs90
University of York =
djs...@unix.york.ac.uk = THE Christian magazine
===============================================================================

Paul Johnson

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

In article <Dqq2w...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

>Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which


>undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.

Yes, you've almost got it. What you have not realised is that *Creationism*
was Satan's invention. By subverting a few religeous leaders (either by
simply corrupting them, or imbuing them with sinful pride), he has achieved
two goals:

1. Stop Christians from concentrating on the Word and the Will of God, and
distract them with lots of arguments about whether scientific evidence
or a literal interpretation of Genesis I should take precedence.

2. Make many non-Christians who might otherwise have found Jesus go away,
because Christianity "obviously" contradicts the facts.

This would be much easier for Satan, because tricking or subverting lots and
lots of scientists would be difficult, while doing the same thing to a few
preachers would be much easier and far more effective.

Paul.

Paul Johnson

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

In article <Dqq39...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...

>Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
>surely thats
>a pretty good prediction.

Unfortunately people have been predicting that the Book of Revelation (note:
not "Revelations") is about to happen for a fraction under 2,000 years. So
far they have been 100% wrong.

To qualify as a testable prediction, there has to be a time when we can
decide whether it was true or false. Revelation is not a testable prediction
because it has not got a time limit. No matter how long we wait, we can never
mark it false because it still might happen tomorrow.

>> [Science makes testable predictions, many of which are correct]

>And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
>of prediction also!

Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by
science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:

1. Specific. It must be possible to tell beforehand what event is predicted.
Matching events to prophecies after the fact does not count.

2. Surprising. "It will rain on Tuesday" is not surprising. "My house will
be struck by lightning on Tuesday" is surprising.

3. Not part of a scattershot. If you make 100 predictions, each of which
has a 1% chance of occuring, then you can expect to see about 1 which
comes true. By conveniently forgetting the other 99 you can look like
a pretty good prophet.

Richard Herring

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:

: True : Christians often find a problem with science conflicting with the Bible.


: I as a Christian throw away any scientific "foundation" which undermines the
: truth in the Bible. God's word comes first.

Indeed. If two apparent truths are in conflict, then one of them must be
false, or you have misunderstood at least one of them. To determine which
is false, or where your misunderstanding lies, you have to evaluate them
objectively. It's no use starting from the preconception that one of them
"must" be true. It might help to start by considering the unspoken
assumption here that the Bible was dictated to St. Paul (in 16th century
English, naturally) by the Almighty, and that consequently every word in it
is "literally true", whatever that might mean.

: Do you agree that Satan is a deceiver? Then you must agree that anything which


: undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.

Dodgy logic there. As a scientist, you should know better. You appear to
be saying:
(1) Satan is a deceiver.
(2) All deceit undermines the Gospel.
(3) Therefore all which undermines the Gospel comes from Satan.

Even given the premises (I'll leave it to others to argue about the
unspoken one which precedes (1), but (2) looks distinctly shaky)
the conclusion simply does not follow.

: Evoulution is a clever plan, it was

: also Satan's plan to bury Darwin under the floor of Westminster abbey, to

: undermine the church. That was a great downfall of the church, and it has never
: recovered to this day.

I have this mental picture of something seeping out from Darwin's remains
and gradually infiltrating the crumbly stonework until the Abbey eventually
collapses. I'm sorry, but it's so funny I can't take it seriously.
Darwin proposed a theory, since improved upon by others, which makes
testable predictions. It may be true or it may be false. If it's false,
then it can be proved so by standard scientific methods, without recourse
to dogma. If true, well then, it's true; from a religious perspective,
presumably you can learn from it something more about the relationship
between God and his creation. If it also conflicts with the
*literal* interpretation of a creation myth, then that myth is not
*literally* true. Since the purpose of myth is not the expression of literal
truth, that is totally unimportant.


--
Richard Herring | richard...@gecm.com | Speaking for myself
GEC-Marconi Research Centre | Not the one on TV.

David Aldridge

unread,
May 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/2/96
to

Martin East wrote:

> I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I want to
> get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the world,
> and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
> ... thats what really matters.

But Martin, I don't think anyone *here* is arguing that God did not
create the world! They are just arguing that our understanding of
the ancient aramaic word (which we take to mean day) may not actually
have meant to signify a literal 24 hour period.

While it's quite OK for you to believe that God created the world in
6 x 24 hour periods, and that if God is God, he could have done it in
6 microseconds instead, that doesn't mean that everyone else should.

Personally, I believe in a God who could have done it in the 6 days,
but I also see some pretty good evidence that the universe is old.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter though. What matters is that people
can be saved from their sins through Christ's death on the cross and
subsequent resurrection. Whether I believe in evolution or 6-day
creation does *not* alter this wonderful fact.

Yours,

Martin East

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON (K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk) wrote:
: DEn...@cee.hw.ac.uk> <4m1sdo$e...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>

: Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Paul Johnson (paul.j...@gecm.com) wrote:
: : : In article <DqHDE...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says...


: : : In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
: : : year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
: : : and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
: : : waiting.

: : In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
: : came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.

: Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?

: Great Evangelist he may be. Creationist he may be.

: But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
: methods indicate a young earth? If 51% of dating methods indicated a young
: earth you can be sure scientists would be talking about the uncertainty of
: the age of the earth. If 75% indicated a younng earth, the scientists
: would be talking about the probability of a young earth and some dating
: anomalies.

Have a look on the web, a good site to start from is:
www.christiananswers.net

: When an evangelist tells me about the Bible I am more likely to believe


: him and if I am not sure, I take his statements as true unless I have good
: reason not to.

: When an evangelist talks about science my reaction is likely to be the
: opposite. When an evangelist talks about scientific proof that science got
: it wrong

: Chorus

: I don't believe it.

: Kathy HH


--

Martin East : 3rd Year Computer Science

: Heriot-Watt University
Email: ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk : Edinburgh (Scotland)

______________________________________________________
(Advertising Manager for "Watt's On" student newspaper.)
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
(If you want to place an ad in this local Edinburgh )
(paper please E-Mail for details. )
(______________________________________________________)

`For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;


the more knowledge, the more grief.' 1:18 Ecclesiastes

<>< - Its quite good having my creator as a friend.

Martin East

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Paul Wheeler (peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
: > ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk says

: > It does not mean that he is correct.

: > I'd rather trust what God says than what C.S. Lewis said.

: Perhaps you mean "what your teachers have told you God says". I`d sooner
: trust CS Lewis than your teachers myself. Though I wouldn`t take either
: of them totally uncritically `as gospel`. That would be idolatry.

: Tony Wheeler

I'd sooner trust in God's word as being what he said.

Steven Carr

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

on 1 May 1996 17:08:38 GMT, K.Haigh-H...@bradford.ac.uk
(K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) wrote :


>Martin East (ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk) wrote:
<skip>


>: In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
>: came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.

>Another one for the 'I don't believe it' file?

>But where is his Scientific basis for the statement that 90% of dating
>methods indicate a young earth?

Strange as it feels to agree with Martin East, 90 %, if not more, of
dating methods will give a much younger Earth than 4.5 Billion years.

Different parts of the Earth are at different ages. The oceans are
relatively young. One dating method (based, IIRC, on the concentration
of aluminium ) gives a date for the oceans of about 100 years old.

Dating mountains like Everest will also not give you a 4.5 Gigayear
date as they are also young.

Naturally, these young ages are only *minimum* ages of the Earth. The
real age of the entire Earth is bigger and there are dating techniques
which can show that.

BTW, Where was this conference in 1980? Who were these top scientists?
Why did they feel evolution was debunked?
.
Steven Carr (NW England) ca...@dial.pipex.com
Gun,foot,aim,fire!


John Chapman

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <Dqq39...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes

>

>Predict: Yes, if God did create the world then Revelations is to happen,
>surely thats
>a pretty good prediction.

Could you please explain the theory that enables one to predict the
content of Revelation, and then measure whether or not the prediction
was correct


>
>
>: used to predict. So theories that have a proven track record of
>: prediction are most certainly to be put above those that have no such
>: track record.
>

>And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
>of prediction also!

I am afraid I cannot find any predictions in the scientific sense. There
are many prophecies bu these are not the same as scientific predictions.


>
>Does it not make everything in your faith a bit tennuous though (bad
spelling)

Not in the least, I find having to go into mental contortions to explain
a passage from the bible in literal terms is far more tenuous that
seeing it as an explanation of some truth using the language of myth and
imagery.

--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk

John Chapman

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

In article <Dqq3o...@cee.hw.ac.uk>, Martin East <ce...@cee.hw.ac.uk>
writes

>

>: You seem to be arguing that we can't know anything until we know
>: everything. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I know the sky
>: is blue, but I don't know everything.
>
>We can make relative statements : the sky is blue to you. But what
>about a snake? is it blue to a snake?

A snake, so far as I am aware has no language and therefore cannot
describe the colour of the sky, however were he a scientist he would
probably be able to measure the frequency of blue light and come to
roughly the same value as we do.


>

>
>: Which bits of the world look 6,000 years old to you, and how can you
>: tell?
>
>How can you tell they are 5 billion yrs. I stand by my Bible and what it
>says, the world was created in 6 days, not 6 billion years.

Unfortunately a day is defined in terms of the relationship between the
sun and the earth. If you really want to believe Genesis then when in
ch1 v2 he created light, he had not yet created the lamps in the
firmament which divided day from night. This does not come until v14
thus all the intervening creations were made in time periods which had
no defined length and hence could have been anywhere from about 5 hours
to 5exp50000 hours or more. I am afraid you cannot measure the length of
a day until the means of defining have been created.



>: I have a theory that the sky is pink. You will of course give equal
>: consideration to this theory, despite scientific consensus that the sky
>: is in fact blue.
>
>But what does God say, he created it.

Perhaps you can point to this reference. In my copy of Genesis it is
described merely as light. Or has God given you a special message on
this topic.


>
>: In a previous post you alleged that 90% of dating methods indicate a 6,000
>: year-old Earth. I named 6 dating methods that indicated a much older Earth,
>: and challenged you to name 54 that indicated a young Earth. I'm still
>: waiting.
>

>In time I will try to get the literature, the actual argument of 90% to 10%
>came from a tape, of Ken Ham, who is a great Evangalist Creationist.

the figure of 6000 years came from Bishop Usher I seem to remember


>
>Creation is about God, and God is about life!
>

>I am sure the evidence for + against exists , but, thats not what I
want to
>get bogged down with. The fact of the matter is that God created the
world,
>and us, and that we sinned, and will die because of that
>... thats what really matters.

That is perhaps a view of what the creation story tells us but there is
no need therefore to take the essential truth that 'God created' and try
to use the imagary by which this message was transmitted down the ages
as a rational explanation of how God performed the creation

--
John Chapman
jo...@purley.demon.co.uk

David Aldridge

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Paul Johnson wrote:

> Martin East wrote:

> >And I think that the Bible has a pretty good track record
> >of prediction also!

> Care to cite examples? Remember that to match the predictions made by


> science, an example must fulfil the following criteria:

> 1. Specific. It must be possible to tell beforehand what event is predicted.
> Matching events to prophecies after the fact does not count.

> 2. Surprising. "It will rain on Tuesday" is not surprising. "My house will
> be struck by lightning on Tuesday" is surprising.

> 3. Not part of a scattershot. If you make 100 predictions, each of which
> has a 1% chance of occuring, then you can expect to see about 1 which
> comes true. By conveniently forgetting the other 99 you can look like
> a pretty good prophet.

While I don't really agree 100% with what Martin writes, many of the
prophesies in the bible were fairly specific and did/have come true.

As an example, one prophesy told that the Messiah, the King of the
Jews, would be born in Bethlehem. (It's specific - point 1)
When the magi came from the east, Herod's men looked up this prophesy
and sent them there. The result was surprising (point 2) because it
was a very small town, and the messiah was to be a king, hence not
a very likely choice. (Jerusalem would have been more sensible).
There were no prophesies which told of other places the messiah was
to be born. Hence it meets point 3 too.

Does this satisfy you?

Probably not, if you're feeling cynical. However, if you look at all
the OT prophesies concerning the messiah (written well before Jesus)
and then look at the likelihood of them all being fulfilled in one
man, we have probabilities *against* greater than that of life arising
from nothing simply by chance! :-)

Satisfied yet?

No?!!! Oh well, there's no pleasing some people! ;-)

David Aldridge

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96
to

Dave Spence wrote:

> David Aldridge wrote[snip...]

> Fair point. Here's the quote;

> Genesis 2:18-19 (RSV)

> I think it depends on which version of the bible you have. I can see


> that reading the NIV would give a slightly diffferent view than this but
> in the RSV (which is a good translation from Hebrew) it is clear that in
> this passage God made man first and then the animals.

You are right of course, and we would need a good greek translator to make
certain how it should be written. I thought, since the NIV is more modern
than the standard RSV, would have it slightly more correct, but either way
it doesn't alter either of our main points! :-)

Thanks for the references. I'll keep them on file for future reference
(when I have time and energy to seek them out!)

> To sum up, I agree with you on nearly all of the points you made here.
> What I have being trying to show is that, by always insisting on a literal
> interpretation of scripture, we can often get the wrong message or miss it
> altogether. I don't believe, for a minute, that believing in creationism
> would give you an erroneous impression of God or would harm your chances
> of salvation. What I would say is that NOT taking it literally does not
> mean you are not a Christian which I have heard in the past - although not
> on THIS newsgroup, thank goodness!

Sounds good. It's always nice to agree! :-) You are right here and I agree
with you wholeheartedly.

> I hope you don't take this posting as an attack on the Bible as that is not
> what I intended, so forgive me if it came out that way.

Of course not. And of course you'd be forgiven if needed - but it's not in
this case! :-)

David Shephard

unread,
May 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/3/96