Jump to content


Lover Of Truth


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*

Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 01:34 AM

Hello. I discovered this web site in an internet search on the subject of evolution, and I am curious to hear the arguments and reasoning of the regulars here. Since the early 1980s I have been known as "The Bicycling Guitarist" because I have ridden tens of thousands of miles on a vintage Schwinn ten-speed bicycle while simultaneously playing a Fender Stratocaster guitar, writing hundreds of songs dozens of which are available for free on my official web site that has been online since 1997. I have always loved truth and refused to take things on faith without any evidence. To me, doubting Thomas is a hero of the Bible who represents human inquiry and reason. I was even kicked out of a religious school in third grade because of my skeptical mind.

For at least forty years I have studied the evidence for evolution, and what amazes me most of all about this subject is how so many people can be so misinformed about what evidence there is, and how even when they admit it is there the incredible contortions of twisted logic and wordplay they resort to in order to try to reconcile that evidence with their worldview.

I am neither an atheist nor an anti-creationist. I am firmly convinced however that the evidence of the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that there are multiple lines of independent evidence that all show way beyond any reasonable doubt that humans share common ancestry with other living things.

I wrote a song about this controversy back in 1991 that is (sadly) still relevant. Look for "evolution song" +"bicycling guitarist" in any search engine if you're interested. It is my opinion that most people who argue against the fact evolution happens (and I mean macroevolution too) do so because they have been lied to about it, that what they are arguing against is not the reality at all but rather a strawman caricature of it based on lies, distortions, and misunderstandings of what science is and how it works. I believe most people who argue against evolution mean well, but are misinformed, and that their efforts to sabotage public school science education in America hurt our country, hurt humanity, and bring no honor or glory to Christ.

I am reminded of what Augustine wrote a long time ago about the literal meaning of Genesis, that Christians who make ignorant assertions about the physical world that nonbelievers can see are false hurt the cause of Christ. That is my opinion of so-called fundamentalist Christianity regarding this subject. If they are so wrong about a subject that has so much physical evidence so easily checked, how can I possibly trust their opinion on spiritual matters? I hope my introduction is within the guidelines. I don't know how I can introduce myself and state my views without offending someone, but I mean no offense. I love truth and hate lies. I care about America and our children's future. Those are my motivations, take them for what you will.

Sincerely, TBG

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 July 2010 - 02:05 AM

Welcome to the forums.

And about literal interpretations of Genesis. What does not work is that everyone mainly believes that the laws of physics stayed the same.

If you know anything about the Bible, you would also know that it says death did not come into the world until man sinned. And man did not sin until the 6th day. So time up to that point was eternal. So what in our current laws of physics would support eternity? nothing.

So when we try to explain creation in eternity using laws that support non-eternity it does not make sense. You cannot explain a process using laws that do not support that process and how it works.

If you are interested, I can explain it. But it will require your full attention because it's not the easiest thing to put into words so that a person can understand.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 July 2010 - 02:14 AM

Hi TBG, welcome to EFT. :rolleyes:

Do you think I know what evolution is? Here is my effort at sounding like an evolutionist:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=36910

A biology teacher who has discovered the truth about evolution, namely that it is complete bunk, gave me an A+ for my efforts...

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=37017

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 27 July 2010 - 04:08 AM

Welcome to the forum TBG

I am neither an atheist nor an anti-creationist. I am firmly convinced however that the evidence of the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis,

View Post


So you are literally “firmly convinced” that the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Can you provide scriptural evidence for your assertion, or are you literally “firmly convinced” based upon your presupposed world view apart from said scripture?

In other words, do you have an historical and scriptural foundation fro your claims, or are they merely “a priory” devices?

#5 Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*

Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2010 - 01:40 AM

Welcome to the forum TBG
So you are literally “firmly convinced” that the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Can you provide scriptural evidence for your assertion, or are you literally “firmly convinced” based upon your presupposed world view apart from said scripture?

In other words, do you have an historical and scriptural foundation fro your claims, or are they merely “a priory” devices?

View Post


I am firmly convinced that the evidence of the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis because of the evidence of many different types that all show a great age for the earth, that humans evolved from other species, that a global flood did not happen. It is because that is what the evidence of the world indicates. I'm not making this up. A literal reading of Genesis doesn't actually make very many claims that can be tested (and hence the main reason why it can't be considered "science"), but those that can be tested have been proven false. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

Now my question is why, if the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would God plant so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word? Such a God would be a malicious prankster not worthy of worship. Now you can try to tell me that the evidence ain't there, or that it means something else, but I have studied science, history and theology for many decades and am aware of much that you deny.

The claim that nature behaved differently under direct supervision of God and hence we can't understand the past is one I see must be necessary to accommodate a young-earth worldview, but the only reason one would need such contortions of logic is to support a literal interpretation of Scripture. One must presume that radiometric dating is bogus, that the speed of light must have varied, etc.

I for one see the creation itself: the earth, the universe, life, as God's word just as much as the Bible, and if a certain interpretation of the Bible, a certain way of reading it, is contradicted by the evidence of that creation I would respectfully suggest instead that either perhaps those passages were not meant to be interpreted literally or perhaps the whole Bible is nothing more than the campfire imaginings of Bronze Age and Iron Age desert nomads. Did God give power to Satan to trick us by planting the evidence contradicting a literal interpretation? There is so much evidence that would be giving Satan way too much power, and again, why would God do that if our souls are at stake and he loves us?

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:04 AM

Now my question is why, if the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would God plant so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word?

View Post

Like millions of dead things fossilized in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth? Or how about a written history that mysteriously fades away about five thousand years ago?

I don't think you answered Ron's question. He wants you to quote some scripture and then expose your misinterpretation of that scripture. By doing that he will show how your above question would go from:

"If the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would God plant so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word?"

to:

"If the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would we allow ourselves to be decieved by science, falsely-so-called, and so easily forfeit our very own souls for a lie?"

(Don't forget about my post: My post

I would like to hear your reply since it goes right to how you introduced yourself.)

#7 Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*

Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:11 AM

[quote name='Adam Nagy' date='Jul 28 2010, 02:04 AM']
Like millions of dead things fossilized in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth? Or how about a written history that mysteriously fades away about five thousand years ago?


The fossil record does not support the idea of a global flood if that is what you are suggesting. Why are the older fossils of different types and forms and there are clear transitions found over time between the different "kinds" in contradiction to what the literal creation story implies?

Genesis says God created man from the dust of the earth and that animals bring forth "after their kind." These statements are not contradicted by science. Yes any set of parents will bring forth offspring resembling those parents, but it is populations that evolve, not individuals.

Even if humans didn't start recording history until five thousand years ago, that doesn't mean they weren't around. There are other traces of their existence besides what is carved in stone or printed on paper.

#8 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 28 July 2010 - 02:42 AM

The fossil record does not support the idea of a global flood if that is what you are suggesting. Why are the older fossils of different types and forms and there are clear transitions found over time between the different "kinds" in contradiction to what the literal creation story implies?

View Post

Hi TBG, good to meet you :)

The thing is, creationists believe that the evidence does support a young earth and a global flood. They believe that because there are gaps between what we consider transitional forms, the idea that that they are even transitionals in the first place is speculation. They claim that fossils are only dated by the layers of rocks they are found in, and they don't accept our proposed age of those rocks. They talk about the Grand Canyon a lot, and how it was quickly formed.

It's something like that, anyway. Personally, I think the creationist agrument is unsupportable, but I'll let one of the regulars here explain better B)

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2010 - 03:00 AM

I am firmly convinced that the evidence of the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis because of the evidence of many different types that all show a great age for the earth, that humans evolved from other species, that a global flood did not happen. It is because that is what the evidence of the world indicates. I'm not making this up. A literal reading of Genesis doesn't actually make very many claims that can be tested (and hence the main reason why it can't be considered "science"), but those that can be tested have been proven false. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

Now my question is why, if the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would God plant so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word? Such a God would be a malicious prankster not worthy of worship. Now you can try to tell me that the evidence ain't there, or that it means something else, but I have studied science, history and theology for many decades and am aware of much that you deny.

The claim that nature behaved differently under direct supervision of God and hence we can't understand the past is one I see must be necessary to accommodate a young-earth worldview, but the only reason one would need such contortions of logic is to support a literal interpretation of Scripture. One must presume that radiometric dating is bogus, that the speed of light must have varied, etc.

I for one see the creation itself: the earth, the universe, life, as God's word just as much as the Bible, and if a certain interpretation of the Bible, a certain way of reading it, is contradicted by the evidence of that creation I would respectfully suggest instead that either perhaps those passages were not meant to be interpreted literally or perhaps the whole Bible is nothing more than the campfire imaginings of Bronze Age and Iron Age desert nomads. Did God give power to Satan to trick us by planting the evidence contradicting a literal interpretation? There is so much evidence that would be giving Satan way too much power, and again, why would God do that if our souls are at stake and he loves us?

View Post


Can you show empirical evidence that the laws of physics and the passing of time stayed the same since everything came into being? No? Then why ponder one outcome?

1) Also, what is faith if all of what you want to believe you have to see?
2) Out of all the hundreds of claimed processes for evolution, can you name just 5 that meet the criteria of being empirical?
3) Evolution requires life, right? Can you give an empirical example of life coming from non-life naturally? no natural life, no natural evolution.
4) Can you show an empirical process where something comes from nothing and created all that we see?
etc....

Do you believe in universalism? Where everybody goes to heaven no matter what? And if not than where is the line drawn that determines who goes where, in the middle of sin or at the beginning of sin? And who determines this?

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2010 - 03:08 AM

Hi TBG, good to meet you :)

The thing is, creationists believe that the evidence does support a young earth and a global flood. They believe that because there are gaps between what we consider transitional forms, the idea that that they are even transitionals in the first place is speculation. They claim that fossils are only dated by the layers of rocks they are found in, and they don't accept our proposed age of those rocks. They talk about the Grand Canyon a lot, and how it was quickly formed.

It's something like that, anyway. Personally, I think the creationist agrument is unsupportable, but I'll let one of the regulars here explain better B)

View Post


1) Can you show empirical evidence that the laws of physics remained the same since the beginning?
2) Can you tell me how time came to be?
3) Can you tell me how aging came into being?
4) Can you show empirical evidence of something coming from nothing?
5) Can you show empirical evidence of life coming from non-life?
6) Can evolution happen without life?

It's ironic that so many claim to be so much smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone whom dare to disagree with evolution and old earth. But yet the basic foundations of what they believe they really have no answer for and are unwilling to ponder anything else. It takes faith to believe what is not empirical. So unless you want to start showing us empirical examples, I don't think your belief is anymore provable than creation. Maybe in your mind.

#11 Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*

Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2010 - 03:28 AM

1) Can you show empirical evidence that the laws of physics remained the same since the beginning?
2) Can you tell me how time can to be?
3) Can you tell me how aging cam into being?
4) Can you show empirical evidence of something coming from nothing?
5) Can you show empirical evidence of life coming from non-life?
6) Can evolution happen without life?

It's ironic that so many claim to be so much smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone whom dare to disagree with evolution and old earth. But yet the basic foundations of what they believe they really have no answer for and are unwilling to ponder anything else. It takes faith to believe what is not empirical. So unless you want to start showing us empirical examples, I don't think your belief is anymore provable than creation. Maybe in your mind.

View Post


I base my acceptance of the age of the earth and evolution upon solid physical evidence. The past leaves traces that persist to the present and can be studied. Also, evolution has been observed in the field and in the lab, including speciation or macroevolution. I am open to having my mind changed if shown evidence that conflicts with my current understanding of affairs. My experience of this controversy for at least the past thirty years though is that more and more evidence is being found all the time that supports my current understanding of this affair, and creationists have to resort to more and more twisted contortions of logic and distortions of truth in order to deny that evidence.

#12 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 July 2010 - 04:15 AM

I am firmly convinced that the evidence of the world God created does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis because of the evidence of many different types that all show a great age for the earth, that humans evolved from other species, that a global flood did not happen. It is because that is what the evidence of the world indicates. I'm not making this up. A literal reading of Genesis doesn't actually make very many claims that can be tested (and hence the main reason why it can't be considered "science"), but those that can be tested have been proven false. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

View Post


So, in other words, you cannot provide scriptural evidence for your assertion, and you are literally “firmly convinced” based upon your presupposed world view apart from said scripture. And there are as many views that interpret the evidences differently as well. But you choose the old Earth model.

Now my question is why, if the eternal salvation or damnation of our souls are at stake, why would God plant so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word? Such a God would be a malicious prankster not worthy of worship. Now you can try to tell me that the evidence ain't there, or that it means something else, but I have studied science, history and theology for many decades and am aware of much that you deny.

View Post


God didn’t “so much evidence that flatly contradicts a literal reading of His word”, you just choose to interpret it differently than He had it written. And I have studied science, history and theology for many decades and am aware of much that you deny as well. Just because you don’t like what the scriptures say, doesn’t mean you attempts to rewrite them will garner any success at the day you stand before Him and attempt to argue how wrong He is, and how right you are.

The claim that nature behaved differently under direct supervision of God and hence we can't understand the past is one I see must be necessary to accommodate a young-earth worldview, but the only reason one would need such contortions of logic is to support a literal interpretation of Scripture. One must presume that radiometric dating is bogus, that the speed of light must have varied, etc.

View Post

So, you were there at Creation, and can say emphatically that God had to have done it as you envision, contrary to how He had it written? You are intent, as well, to have your presupposition accommodated it seems. Also, you “must” presume, unscientifically, and without logic, that radiometric dating, and the speed of light “must” follow uniformitarianism. And yet, you have absolutely no evidence to support your premise.


I for one see the creation itself: the earth, the universe, life, as God's word just as much as the Bible, and if a certain interpretation of the Bible, a certain way of reading it, is contradicted by the evidence of that creation I would respectfully suggest instead that either perhaps those passages were not meant to be interpreted literally or perhaps the whole Bible is nothing more than the campfire imaginings of Bronze Age and Iron Age desert nomads. Did God give power to Satan to trick us by planting the evidence contradicting a literal interpretation? There is so much evidence that would be giving Satan way too much power, and again, why would God do that if our souls are at stake and he loves us?

View Post


It is only contradictory by your interpretation of said evidences; and your world-views need for presupposition to shoe-horn the evidence into that view.

Now, given that last quote of yours that I bracketed, I would wonder what “theological” bent you are attempting to label yourself with; because it isn’t a Biblical one… And that, in-and-of it-self piques my curiosity.

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 July 2010 - 04:25 AM

Also, evolution has been observed in the field and in the lab, including speciation or macroevolution.

View Post


Can you provide these “observed” laboratory evidences that show one species “evolving” in to another species? The evidences that empirically prove “macro-evolution”?

I mean, being a “lover of truth”, I would assume that you would have some “Truth” to back up your assertions.

#14 Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*

Guest_TheBicyclingGuitarist_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 July 2010 - 09:47 AM

Can you provide these “observed” laboratory evidences that show one species “evolving” in to another species? The evidences that empirically prove “macro-evolution”? 

I mean, being a “lover of truth”, I would assume that you would have some “Truth” to back up your assertions.

View Post


Your forum bashes the Talk Origins web site, but that site does have links to resources of scientific papers and studies that demonstrate macroevolution. There are other evidences that show macroevolution happens, such as the spectacular discovery of the "fishapod" Tiktaalik in rocks of the exact age where they were expected to be found. Some misinformed people try to say that it's just a fish, but there are several features of its anatomy that are truly intermediate in form between fish and land animals, in other words, just what would be expected in one of those transitional fossils that some creationists insist don't or can't exist.

So I have truth: hard facts, rocks and fossils and DNA studies to back up my assertion. And for the questioner who asks what proof do I have that the physical processes of today have always been as they are now, I would say the greater burden is on him to show that they haven't been. After all, those processes clearly do exist. We can observe and measure them.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 July 2010 - 10:26 AM

Your forum bashes the Talk Origins web site, but that site does have links to resources of scientific papers and studies that demonstrate macroevolution. There are other evidences that show macroevolution happens, such as the spectacular discovery of the "fishapod" Tiktaalik in rocks of the exact age where they were expected to be found. Some misinformed people try to say that it's just a fish, but there are several features of its anatomy that are truly intermediate in form between fish and land animals, in other words, just what would be expected in one of those transitional fossils that some creationists insist don't or can't exist.

So I have truth: hard facts, rocks and fossils and DNA studies to back up my assertion. And for the questioner who asks what proof do I have that the physical processes of today have always been as they are now, I would say the greater burden is on him to show that they haven't been. After all, those processes clearly do exist. We can observe and measure them.

View Post


So, in other words, NO… You cannot provide any of these “observed” laboratory evidences that show one species “evolving” in to another species that you claimed you could? The evidences that empirically prove “macro-evolution” are nonexistent, and you are merely promulgating propaganda, rhetoric and presupposition.

I would suggest you link to the “Forum Rules” page at the top left of the main forum page, and scroll down to “The Following are disallowed” section, and pay close attention to bullet comments five and six.

You did agree to adhere to the rules of this forum when you applied for membership here. I would also suggest you link to: http://www.evolution..._alert_page.htm and read as well.

As you are new here, and only have 7 post, this will be a warning, in hopes that you will read and head the rules you agreed to.

#16 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 July 2010 - 04:56 PM

I base my acceptance of the age of the earth and evolution upon solid physical evidence. The past leaves traces that persist to the present and can be studied. Also, evolution has been observed in the field and in the lab, including speciation or macroevolution. I am open to having my mind changed if shown evidence that conflicts with my current understanding of affairs. My experience of this controversy for at least the past thirty years though is that more and more evidence is being found all the time that supports my current understanding of this affair, and creationists have to resort to more and more twisted contortions of logic and distortions of truth in order to deny that evidence.

View Post


Not addressing my questions, and using the regular evolutionist claim that it's true because I say so, shows that you know that what you believe has problems that you are unwilling to address. Ignoring what you do not want to see or address does not make a new reality.

Besides, in a theory where absolutes don't exist, and truth is relative. How can you define truth to a point to where you can refer to someone else as being wrong?

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 July 2010 - 10:48 AM

TBG decided to make unacceptable remarks which do not show in this thread. So he was banned for this. His remarks showed that he was not interested in anything except proving evolution. And that through insults he would attempt to do this. So he is banned and thread is closed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users