Why Evolution Is Impossible
- Thread starter Blueridge Believer
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
It is impossible as it contradicts Genesis chapter 1. And for a whole load of other reasons as well.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I love this comic. I used to have the t-shirt.
The evolutionists have to borrow our worldview at some point or the system can never work. In the end, whatever they do not borrow turns out to be absurd.
The evolutionists have to borrow our worldview at some point or the system can never work. In the end, whatever they do not borrow turns out to be absurd.
Ivan
Pastor
I love this comic. I used to have the t-shirt.
The evolutionists have to borrow our worldview at some point or the system can never work. In the end, whatever they do not borrow turns out to be absurd.
Is the t-shirt still available?
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Would most here say that theistic evolution is impossible?
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Theistic evolution is more possible because it borrows some from a theistic worldview. It's still a prop for evolution and it's not the least bit necessary. Theistic evolution denies less of scripture than evolution but it still denies the authority and veracity of scripture.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No, not impossible. But all the same it didn't happen.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
No sorry Ivan, it was shrunk, torn and stained so I threw it out. You know I would give you the shirt off my back though.
I'm kidding. I knew what you mean't. I bought it at the Chicago Museum of Science but you can get it online here and there. Try googling 'then a miracle occurs t-shirt'.
I'm kidding. I knew what you mean't. I bought it at the Chicago Museum of Science but you can get it online here and there. Try googling 'then a miracle occurs t-shirt'.
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
OK. Must one hold to 24 hr periods for the seven days of creation in order to hold to the authority and veracity of Scripture? What I'm really asking is are there other views outside of the 24 hr, young earth view that you and others here would see as permitted/possible based on sound exegesis?
BTW, when are the WWBD bracelets going to be made available on PBay?? I think they would make fine stocking stuffers.
Ivan
Pastor
Although shrunk, torn and stained I think you still have that old t-shirt....come on, man. I'll give you ten bucks for it. OH, okay! I'll google!!
The problem is that any view other than the prima facie understanding of Gen. 1 depends in some measure on the conclusions of materialistic scientists. If it were a simple matter of a fellow Christian asking us to consider something we may have missed in Scripture itself, there would be no hesitation; but the fact is, many adopt the theory of Hodge that science has not yet had its final say, and leave the Bible open to reinterpretation on the basis of external pressures. This produces a lamentable result, because it means the Bible is not permitted to speak for itself, but exegesis is conducted under the facade of accommodating so-called respectable opinions of men.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
From an exegetical standpoint any view other than literal 6 day, 24 hour creation is out of the question. What did Moses' audience think he was talking about: 6, 24 hour days, or millions of years? Moreover, the fourth commandment makes it pretty clear that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh, the same is to be our pattern. Does that mean that we work for millions of years before taking the Sabbath off?
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
I'm a bit pickier still. I don't go for the 24 hour part of the test. Scripture doesn't give us hours. God didn't provide a clock to measure the period.
It is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, and not go beyond that.
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
But aren't the literary tools used to interpret Scripture themselves derived from human endeavors? For example, the work Kline has done on the ancient near east treaty formulations has provided some solid ground on which to understand OT covenants. These were extra-biblical discoveries / research upon which Scripture was further assessed. Also, more generally, God's acts and the biblical record of them are bound up in history. History is open to investigation. Historical and natural sciences are sometimes part of that investigation. While Scripture always has primacy over human thought, admitting no human thought to its interpretation (including thinking on natural sciences) doesn't seem possible.
It's one thing to use reason to understand revelation; its quite another thing to impose reason on revelation.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
Last edited:
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed 100%. But where does one stop and the other begin?
If God had revealed contradictions to us, would we not have had to neccessarily question what was, in fact, true?
In other words,, reason is subject to revelation, but the means by which we understand it, so in a sense it is prior...right?
LockTheDeadbolt
Puritan Board Freshman
Responding to the thoughts in the article linked in the first post:
It seems that theories of truth come in two general categories: coherence and correspondence. A correspondence theory of truth (loosely, that something is true because it "corresponds" with an objective reality) appears to be the prevailing theory among the atheistic neo-Darwinists (indeed, their almost exclusive reliance on empirical verification requires this). This, of course, assumes the existence of both a subject and an object (a scientist and his test tube). The existence of an observing mind is a necessary precondition for this theory of truth, which immediately invalidates statements regarding the evolution of life (at least within an atheistic framework).
"Life evolved from non-life x billion years ago" can only be true if there is an observing mind present, as noted above. Unless one grants the existence of an observing mind prior to the time when life evolved from non-life, then this statement can not be true according to the theory of truth implicit in the statement itself.
(A common response is that the statement is true with reference from our viewpoint as observing the past. But how can a statement be true now with reference to something that was not true at the time it purportedly occurred?)
This creates a real dilemma, since one must either grant the existence of a real subject observing the evolution of life from non-life (which means abandoning atheism or adopting immensely silly views regading little green men) or abandon a correspondence theory of truth... even though a coherence theory offers even less hope for the dogmatism of Darwinism. Or commit the unforgivable sin: abandon evolution.
Thoughts?
It seems that theories of truth come in two general categories: coherence and correspondence. A correspondence theory of truth (loosely, that something is true because it "corresponds" with an objective reality) appears to be the prevailing theory among the atheistic neo-Darwinists (indeed, their almost exclusive reliance on empirical verification requires this). This, of course, assumes the existence of both a subject and an object (a scientist and his test tube). The existence of an observing mind is a necessary precondition for this theory of truth, which immediately invalidates statements regarding the evolution of life (at least within an atheistic framework).
"Life evolved from non-life x billion years ago" can only be true if there is an observing mind present, as noted above. Unless one grants the existence of an observing mind prior to the time when life evolved from non-life, then this statement can not be true according to the theory of truth implicit in the statement itself.
(A common response is that the statement is true with reference from our viewpoint as observing the past. But how can a statement be true now with reference to something that was not true at the time it purportedly occurred?)
This creates a real dilemma, since one must either grant the existence of a real subject observing the evolution of life from non-life (which means abandoning atheism or adopting immensely silly views regading little green men) or abandon a correspondence theory of truth... even though a coherence theory offers even less hope for the dogmatism of Darwinism. Or commit the unforgivable sin: abandon evolution.
Thoughts?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
For most of my ministry, I simply accepted what the Progressive Creationists (most seminary profs) and Framework people (e.g., Kline) said. Only when my denomination began debating homosexuality, did I begin to realize that my hermeneutic which allowed accommodating billions of years in Genesis 1 was virtually identical to what the pro-gay mainliners where saying about Romans 1. Rethinking the consistency of my position, reading widely in the Answers in Genesis site, and doing some more reading on literary genre and hermeneutics led me back to the "normal" reading of Genesis 1-11.
BTW, if you want to consider the issue from the scientific side by a ministry which is staunchly presuppositional in their apologetic, cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. They have gazillions of resources, including complete books for free online.
BTW, if you want to consider the issue from the scientific side by a ministry which is staunchly presuppositional in their apologetic, cf. Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics. They have gazillions of resources, including complete books for free online.
If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
Daniel, are you sure that the earth rotated at the exact rate back at creation as presently? I don't think we can say that--scripture doesn't go into it. The rotation rate has measurably decreased in our time. That's why I think the 24 hour element is introducing specificity that scripture doesn't need.
I'd go with "morning and evening, day one" as the Hebrew puts it. I'm uncomfortable trying to be more precise than the information given allows.
No, reason is not prior to revelation. "Contradiction" is a good place to start. Who determines that contradiction will be no part of the Christian system? Not us, but God. Therefore revelation is prior to reason. We think God's thoughts after Him.
I'll tell you why evolution is impossible.
Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.
Evolutionists say that the reason that crocodiles are so ornery is because of the way their medulla oblangata evolved but Momma says it's because they have all those teeth but don't have a toothbrush.
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
Well there are some people on this board that think fooz ball is from the Devil.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
The Professor: Well, mama is wrong.
Adam Sandler: No, Colonel Sanders, you're wrong (then tackles him)
Seb
Puritan Board Junior
If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
Daniel, are you sure that the earth rotated at the exact rate back at creation as presently? I don't think we can say that--scripture doesn't go into it. The rotation rate has measurably decreased in our time. That's why I think the 24 hour element is introducing specificity that scripture doesn't need.
I'd go with "morning and evening, day one" as the Hebrew puts it. I'm uncomfortable trying to be more precise than the information given allows.
I've always had a problem with the "24 hour" day issue. I want to believe it, but some things (even without science) just don't fit.
I think there are some problems within Scripture itself concerning creation day-length.
For example: All the things accomplished on Day 6:
All land based creatures were created (Gen 1:25),
Adam was created (Gen 1:27),
Adam names all the animals (Gen 2:19),
God puts Adam to sleep and then creates Eve (Gen 1:27 + 2:22).
Am I reading this all wrong or is that a lot for a man to do in just 12 hours of daylight?
I take a O.T. "day" to be a cycle. In Moses' time wasn't it: sunset > night time > sunrise > daytime > sunset = 1 day? In that case my "day" today is only 23 hour 59 minutes long because the Sun is moving south and the days are getting shorter.
When I speak of a "day" on Venus (5392 hours) isn't the day/night cycle what I would be referring to instead of 24 hours?
If we stayed only in scripture to understand God's creation, wouldn't we still think the Sun circled the Earth?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
If it is sufficient to call them days in the normal sense, then it is legitimate to call them 24 hour days, as 24 hour days are days in the normal sense.
Daniel, are you sure that the earth rotated at the exact rate back at creation as presently? I don't think we can say that--scripture doesn't go into it. The rotation rate has measurably decreased in our time. That's why I think the 24 hour element is introducing specificity that scripture doesn't need.
I'd go with "morning and evening, day one" as the Hebrew puts it. I'm uncomfortable trying to be more precise than the information given allows.
I think 24 hours is a round figure for an ordinary day. Consequently, I would not consider 23 hours 59 minutes as heresy.
Seb
Puritan Board Junior
I agree - not heresy. But does anyone know when "we" moved from a cycle-based day to a standardized 24 day?
Last edited:
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thank you Waterboy (aka Adam Sandler)!
BTW - for those who learn their science on television, Bobby Boucher had another good quote: "Look Who's on TV mama... it's the devil."
I know we digress but Sandler is one of those guys I never expected to make it big. He used to annoy me with some of his characters on SNL but he is, by far, the most successful movie maker that SNL has ever produced. Almost every single one of his movies is funny and/or really good.
- Status
