The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design


The idea in brief:

Here is my ‘Sin Theory of Evolution’ that reconciles Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design:

1) I believe God created the world and all life, and He created it perfect;
2) But we do see some evidence of gradual evolution in fossils and DNA;
3) Yet this gradual evolution is too complex to be the product of random chance – it seems more like careful design by a powerful intelligence (ref: Irreducible Complexity);
4) Many physical features of lifeforms are purposed for harm (e.g. thorns, claws, poison stingers) – pointing to a sadistic, malevolent sentience manipulating it.

Combining the above: God created life; humanity’s sin spoiled it and continues to mutate it; and the devil is the evil Intelligent Designer who has been tampering with God’s original genetic blueprints over the millennia to produce ever more harmful, horrific DE-evolutions.

Evolution is not life getting better and better. It is merely life trying not to die as the entire of creation deteriorates!

After all, in a perfect world with no death, ‘survival of the fittest’ is nonexistant – EVERY ANIMAL SURVIVES, hence there is no mechanism for Darwinistic evolution! Physical features like paralyzing venom or a hard shell would be superfluous – there is no prey to catch or predation to hide from!

But is that all there is? Thankfully no, because Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice cleanses sin and will one day return all creation to its original, non-evolving perfection. Amen!

Bible references: God created life (Gen 1 & 2); animals originally ate plants (Gen 1:29-30); sin introduces death (Gen 2:17 & Rom 5:12) and harmful features of lifeforms (Gen 3:18); the devil has temporary power over the world (2 Cor 4:4 & Eph 2:2); Jesus will repair the world (Isa 11:6-9 & Rom 8:23)

—————————————-

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.” - Charles Darwin

The above quote from the hero of evolutionists himself points out one conundrum faced by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents alike: If the multitudes of life forms on this Earth are created or designed by a just and loving God, then how could He create creatures with such cruel features as parasite-depositing stings, or razor claws coupled to a (let’s face it, fellow cat lovers) horrifically sadistic mind?

I believe I may have a suitable answer.

Here’s an interesting theory fleshed out by myself, one that reconciles Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. Impossible? Believe it or not, I think it makes sense.

(If you’re lazy to read, summary of my theory at bottom of this post.)

This post first assumes the following:

1) God as portrayed in the Bible is real.

2) God created all life on Earth as Creationism holds.

3) Evolution is an existing process that affects the descent of life as the theory of evolution holds.

4) Life is too complex to be formed by purely random chance, especially complex organs such as the eye or the stinger, as Intelligent Design holds.

Now watch as I reconcile these disparate assumptions, beginnign with some basic introduction to those topics

————————

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

The theory of Evolution holds that life was first formed from inorganic matter. This simple life then gradually, randomly changed as it multiplied and spread. The better changes resulted in the organism surviving better, thus being able to have more offspring which in turn survived and multiplied.

Over millions of years, these bit-by-bit adaptations have resulted in the varied forms of life we see today. From bacteria to apple trees to ants to whales and humans, all are descended from the same ancestor, with the poorer features weeded out by death – a process called natural selection.

And throughout this gradual evolution, there was no guiding force behind it all – only random chance and natural forces of selection.

Pro-evolution scientists and supporters claim that there is ample evidence that supports the theory of evolution, such as how some fossils seem to show halfway-formed appendages and how life forms seem to share common links.

More confrontational supporters also like to taunt Christians by pointing out creatures like sharks and parasitic wasps, asking: “How can a loving God create such vicious and horrible creatures?”

————————

THE BIBLICAL ACOUNT OF CREATION

According to the Bible, God created all life on this Earth, wilfully and intelligently. His ultimate creation was man. God made everything perfect, but man sinned and spoiled this perfect creation.

But because of the corrupting influence of sin, death entered into the world. Man and animal turned violent, with the first recorded murder being perpetrated by Cain against Abel. Creation had been tainted and spoiled, twisted into a nightmarish parody of Eden.

In the Bible (namely, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2) it is made clear that God was directly responsible for all life on Earth. In fact, He was responsible for all creation. But how exactly he made life appear (Creation: How?), and how long he took (literally 6 days, or is that just a figurative description?) are not stated.

Pro-creation supporters claim that there is no solid evidence of evolution, such as fossils that clearly show the small steps between forms of life that evolution requires.

On the contrary, they cite many shortcomings of the theory, such as how there seems to be no possible method by which complex organs could have evolved gradually, when even the tiniest missing part would render ther whole organ completely useless. (X-Men: An Example of Intelligent Design)

Which is the basis of Intelligent Design theory.

————————

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY

The theory can be explained like this: If you came across an extremely complex design feature, one with hundreds of interlinked parts, would you immediately think it was randomly formed… Or intentionally and carefully designed?

Let’s say 10,000 years in the future, an alien explorer discovers the ruins of post-apocalyptic Earth. The first thing they notice is all the ‘four-appendaged fossils’ of the ‘predominant life form’ in the ruined cities – cars.

They begin studying the cars, and notice that they have similar traits but with significant variation. Some as smaller, some are bigger. Some are two-doored, others have retractable roofs. They also notice that the cars seem closely related to trucks, vans and the two-wheeled motorcycles.

Then one of them discoveres a three-wheeler, a vehicle with three wheels (Benz Patent Motorwagen). This is hailed as an amazing discovery, proof that four-wheeled life forms were descended from two-wheeled life forms – with the three-wheeled life forms as an intermediate species!

The alien scientists soon build an entire tree of evolution, showing how trucks diverged early from the car line to evolve different engines. Unusual vehicles like tanks are touted as proof of specialization, a modification to deal with the attacks of predatory vehicles – perhaps those large ones with massive jaws that we call bulldozers.

Sounds like a strange and improbable scenario? That’s what seems to be happening with the theory of evolution today, says supporters of Intelligent Design.

Look at a car, see how well designed it is – every part working together with some other part, to result in a fully functional whole vehicle. What are the chances that such a complex machine could have been put together by completely random forces – such as a hurricane passing through a junkyard?

Or does the intricate design of the car logically point to a designer who is highly intelligent – in this case, human engineers?

Now look at biological life – at the eye, at the neuron, at the bombardier beetle‘s explosive chemical blast that repels atatckers yet doesn’t kill itself. What are the chances that all this DNA and proteins and organic matter formed from random forces – such as lightning striking toxic organic elements such as cyanide?

Or does the incredible complexity of biological life, far more advanced than what humans can design (like the echolocation of bats that trumps our best sonar), point to a designer who is supremely intelligent?

And that’s Intelligent Design briefly explained.

————————

THE SIN THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Now here is what I’ve thought up. In the Bible, it is written that before the introduction of sin to mar God’s perfect creation, there was no death or killing. Animals ate grass and lived peacefully with one another.

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.Genesis 1 : 29-30

Now if creation was already perfect, then of course there would be no need for evolution. There was no danger or competition to adapt to. There was no death to escape. Everything was going along swimmingly.

According to the theory of evolution, why did lions evolve huge fangs? So that they could more effectively hunt and kill their meaty prey to eat. Why did gazelles evolve fast sprinting? To better escape hungry lions.

But if the lion and the gazelle were originally able to live in peace with each other, they would never have to evolve to survive. There was no death to avoid, and therefore no natural selection to weed out ‘unfit’ genes. In fact, if creation was perfect, then there wasn’t such a thing as less-than-perfect genes either!

Evolution happens due to natural selection, the fittest surviving. Before sin and death came, there WAS NO natural selection – every animal survived. There is simply no need for evolution when life is already forever unchanging at its pinnacle.

Therefore, in a perfect and sinless creation, evolution has no place at all. Who would need to mess with God’s perfect handiwork, after all?

As Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis puts it:

…when Christians believe in millions of years, they have a problem of consistency by insisting on death, carnivory, disease, and thorns before sin!

(See also the ‘animals living in peace’ promise of Isaiah 11:6-9, which I go into towards the end of this post.)

————————

SIN IS THE MOST POWERFUL MUTAGEN

Now picture the entry of sin into the world, with a single act of arrogant disobedience by Adam and Eve.

Let me first say that sin is the most powerful mutation-causing agent in existence. It singlehandedly caused humans who were supposed to live forever to age and die. It corrupted our minds and hearts to turn to society-destroying evil. And after it accomplished that, it went on to shorten the days of man from centuries to mere decades.

And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”  – Genesis 2 :16-17

…Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… – Romans 5:12

So imagine as sin spreads its corrupting influence… All of a sudden, the grass-eating lions start to crave for meals of flesh and blood. The lions turn on the lambs (and gazelles), ripping them to shreds for their warm, bloody chops.

As time passes, sin mutates the predators to become completely dependant on meat for food. In order to catch this meat, the lions evolve/mutate to be even more fatally endowed, with throat-ripping fangs and razor-sharp claws.

And those that do not have such weapons? They soon die from starvation and competition, removing their un-modified genes from the next generation’s pool. There’s your natural selection for you.

Meanwhile, in order to survive in this new and brutal world, the other creatures must adapt. Those that are weaker are hunted down and eaten, leaving only the fittest to pass down their genes. They even have to adapt and compete among themselves as food grows scarce.

Further evidence of the deterioration of creation can be seen in this:

To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. -
 Genesis 3:16-18

From almost painless childbirth, something changed (i.e. mutated) so that childbearing became much more painful.

From being defenceless, plants began producing physical defences to protect themselves from being eaten (whereas God originally willed them to be eaten by all animals).

So again, the Bible records how sin acted as a mutagen, a catalyst to spur the evolution of life forms so that they could fight to live in a hostile, cruel fallen world.

And that is the Sin Theory of Evolution in a  nutshell. It is the horrible effects of sin that turns a perfect and peaceful life form into a vicious killer, or a frightened prey animal.

Evolution is not life getting better and better… It is merely life trying not to die as the entire of creation deteriorates!

Evolution away from God’s original and perfect design, quite frankly, looks totally evil!

If this is true, then any intelligence behind evolution must be the Devil himself!

————————

EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL!

Heh, I can just imagine Adam sandler’s Mama Boucher in The Waterboy saying that! Anyway…

Remember how I said that confrontational evolution supporters like to taunt Christians with examples of mean, spiteful and wicked-seeming life forms? Such as horrible parasitic worms that burrow out of your legs (Dracunculiasis). Freaks me out, totally!

Now, the evolutionists will spit in your face and claim that a loving Creator could never design such horrible creatures. See that quote by Darwin at the top of this post again.

So as the atheist-evolutionist argument goes, either God is not loving to design such monsters, or He is not perfect or all-powerful since He couldn’t stop such monsters from arising, or there is simply no Creator God at all!

This is not a problem for non-theistic Intelligent Design proponents, as all that they require is an Intelligence to design life… It does not necessarily have to be a moral and kind Intelligence.

But it does pose a problem for Intelligent Design proponents who are also Christians. Because if they use an example of some extremely complex, not likely to be randomly evolved biological feature – such as the famous bombardier beetle’s hydrogen peroxide explosive reaction – the atheist can counter that these designs are inherently violent (explosive death) and often obscenely cruel (corrosive chemicals), which are contrary to the idea of a just and caring Christian God.

Now according to the Sin Theory of Evolution, the correct responce would be: God did NOT directly create such frightening creatures. His original creation was perfect and peaceful, and very agreeable indeed.

What happened is that sin caused horrible mutations to appear, mutations that simultaneously aided in the survival of a species… But at the cost of other life forms.

And just as humans are subceptible to the whispered temptations of the Deceiver, so too I believe, the Devil has a certain amount of influence on the path of evolution.

I mean, think about it: A tiny worm that invades your brain (Trichinosis), heart (Heartworm) or lungs (Ascariasis) and multiplies until you die in writhing, helpless, despairing agony.

Is this more fittingly found in Heaven, or in Hell? (Where ‘the worm does not die’; but see my exegesis of the doctrine of hell.)

More like the work of a loving God who gave His own Son for our sins, or a jealous and rebellious corruptor who enjoys twisting all that is good to become evil?

So let me say it out straight: In the Sin Theory of Evolution, Satan is the Intelligent but Malevolent Designer behind all complex evolution that leads to destructive biological features!

He has been toying with God’s perfect work, trying to make it ‘better’ (i.e. more vicious and destructive) according to his own corrupted ideals.

God made a flying insect with a long ovipositor to lay eggs deep in the ground where it’s moist and cool? Corrupt it with sin, evolve it over generations to have a sharp stinger to lay eggs inside caterpillars! There’s your unbenevolent Ichneumon wasp, Darwin. NOT God’s fault.

So it is with all other nonbenevolent, too complex to randomly evolve biological adaptations… All (or most) of them are examples of Satan taking God’s original design template, and messing with it to produce horrible and twisted versions. It’s like an ill-behaved child trying to ‘fix’ a clock by removing all the gears, then sticking them back in however he feels fit.

Evolution, if it exists, is merely the tool or the result of his dastardly meddling in and muddying of the gene pool. And if he can make the necessary changes within a few generations, then that explains the lack of ‘transitional’ fossils as well.

————————

SO HAS GOD LEFT US TO ROT IN OUR DETRIMENTAL SIN MUTATIONS?

No way! For God is faithful, just and true… A God of love and mercy!

God in His wisdom and love provides a way out. Through faith in Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice on the cross, sin will be erased and creation made perfect once more:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.Romans 8:23

Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when He (Jesus) appears, we shall be like Him (i.e. perfect), for we shall see Him as He is.1 John 3:2

————————

SUMMARY OF THE SIN THEORY OF EVOLUTION

So here is a summary of what I have conjectured in the Sin Theory of Evolution.

God created all life perfect. How He did it exactly is not ascertained – it could be by instantaneous creation or gradual evolution.

Inherent within life were intelligently designed features, such as the very mitochondria providing energy to our cells.

Then the fall of man introduced sin as a corrupting agent, a mutagen if you will. Not in any way a good thing.

Some life forms turned carnivorous, and over time those better suited to killing prey had more offspring – the process of natural selection.

The prey which were better suited to survival too had more offspring, continuing the genetic arms race.

Simultaneously, sin gave the Devil power over Earth and all its life. The Devil started using his own (evil) intelligence modifying life’s designs into destructive features, in order to elevate himself and to spite God – accelerating the genetic arms race.

Over time, and with more and more natural selection and Devilish meddling, the basic peaceful forms of life ‘evolved’ into today’s myriad species with their fangs, claws, poisons and parasitism.

Therefore,  sin = cause of evolution.

And also,  cruel Intelligently Designed biological features = caused by the Devil.

But of course, I have no hard physical evidence to support this theory… It is merely logical and theological conjecture.

And there you have it: The Sin Theory of Evolution, that reconciles Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design. By Scott Thong.

Hope you’ve enjoyed the little science and theology session.

PS. See also this blog post on how bacteria ‘evolve’ resistance to antibiotics. No new genetic information is ever ‘randomly created’. Everything that is needed is already coded in there (including in the ‘junk’ DNA). This fits my Sin Theory of Evolution well.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

76 Responses to “The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design”

  1. Alex Says:

    Hey Scott,

    Its awesome to see and read theories like that. And its really brilliant of you being able to whip up a theory by deep observation, something our education system didn’t train us to.

    I’m amazed on how you were able to reconcile Evolution and Creationism without having to compromise the Bible.

    however, I would like to add that it wasn’t a full reconciliation of both ideas.
    Correct me if i’m wrong but i believe the Theory of Evolution states that we all originate from a single entity (cell or atom or wtv but you get my point yeah?) But the bible clearly states that God personally created the creatures of the sea, beasts of the fields and etc tec. INDIVIDUALLY. (that is according to my interpretation but tell me what you think about it).

    In addition to that, i trust that Evolution takes millions of years but i believe that God literally made the earth in 6 days. Still i am open to other interpretations.

    Take for example, our idea of day and night comes in with the rising and setting of the sun, But the sun wasn’t there when God finished his first few days of work. The Sun was only created on the fourth day. Yet, if you pay attention to the 3rd verse, there was already an evening and a morning even without a Sun.

    Wow, sounds bizarre to me, creating more questions than solving them. God created light. He called it day. So some theologians probably assume that God emits light. So does that imply that Heaven is always having day but when you exit Heaven, you enter ‘night’.

    Haha, mind giving me your precious insights into these issues?
    Scott, there is one thing i deeply admire in you, that you have your own statement of faith and personal interpretation of the Scriptures. AND YET, you are ready to accept/consider other theories.

    Thats real good and i am proud of you. I do.

    Love,
    Alex Steinert Miles

  2. Alex Says:

    of course,
    you requesting me to comment on this piece, would need me to require something else from you.
    I do not comment for free there fore, i insist that you respond to my comment. Notify me yeah? =D

    In my version of hell, its inhabitants are unresponsive people. ROFLMAO.
    I’m joking

    God bless

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    My uber theory supercedes Darwin noob conjectures. God created all the forms of life (though I’m not sure how if not through evolution from a single-celled common ancestor), and they grew fangs and horns and poison through devil-influenced evolution.

    On the morning and evening in Genesis before the Sun was created, I take the whole sequence as not literally 24 hour days – partly due to the fact that the Sun had not been in put in place yet. (However, if you count a day solely from the rotation of the Earth 360 degrees, then a 24 hour day could still apply even without a Sun.)

    Note also that plants were created BEFORE the Sun! So how did they photosynthesize, if they were in fact autotrophic green plants? Probably by God’s shining light.

    There is a line of exegesis that says God created EVERYTHING in the very first verse if Genesis. All the days after that are preparing the Holy Land (that would be Eden) for human habitation.

    http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/genesis.html

    In John’s Revelation of the new heaven and new Earth, day and night still come, but since God shines so gloriously in the Holy City, it doesn’t need any external illumination.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:22-23;&version=31;

    As for hell… Imagine how annoying and disruptive a person who cuts queues and traffic is. Someone who turns on his music loudly at night. Someone who tosses his trash in his neighbor’s garden. Someone who does not take care of public amenities or anything else he doesn’t own.

    Someone who is totally inconsiderate, selfish, self-centred and rudely anti-social.

    Now imagine if EVERYONE behaved that way. That would be hell, figuratively and literally.

  4. Tim Says:

    Why will we not let scripture mean what it says? Where the bible is figurative, it is very obviously figurative. We don’t need to grope around. wondering if God created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days; He says in His word that He did and there is no reason for any Christian to doubt it. The logical conclusion of denying 6 literal 24 hour days is, for example, to assert that the Lord Jesus Christ didn’t really die on the cross, this is something which is hard to understand too, but that doesn’t make it figurative. If God be God then He can do all that He needs to do in a fraction of 6 days. He is an almighty God, recorded all over the pages of scripture.

    We also don’t need to do any creation-evolution synthesis to explain why creatures God created, are killers. Created perfect, all creatures were in harmony, we can be sure about this because death entered in through sin the bible tells us. However, this doesn’t negate the design of these creatures, the way we see them today. The lion with it’s incisors, the bear with it’s mighty claws and the dinosaur with it’s power, were simply aspects of the creation which were redundant until the fall. Lions didn’t use their incisors on the gazelles, but they still had their incisors. When God flooded the world, He brought all the animals to subjection, he didn’t change their physical attributes, nor did He remove the lion’s teeth when David prayed for deliverance in the lion’s den. God is ultimately in control of all things, or else He ceases to be God.
    So, the question remains: why did God create creatures in perfection with attributes capable of serving another end, one which was of death. Well, God is the author of his own plans and purposes. When he created Adam and Eve, He knew they would disobey Him; He knew they would succumb to the temptation of the devil; He knew sin would enter in; He knew that death would come with it. He created all things for His own glory and He has planned all things for His own glory. His redemptive plan would be pointless and meaningless if had not foreknown the fall of mankind.

    So, it’s perfectly reasonable to disregard evolution, it is a tool of satan in so far as it is an ideology, a religion and a force in the age in which we live. Let there be no doubt that satan revels in this philosophy which he has put before the eyes of mankind. It is also reasonable and upright to believe that God did what He said He did. Creatures displaying all the attacking capability of the Bombardier Beetle, employ their weapons simply because sin has touched all of creation. Without sin in the world, the Bombardier Beetle would still be a Bombardier Beetle, with all the capabilities of a Bombardier Beetle, but it’s sinless nature would make that Beetle free from destruction. God creates in perfection the nature and physical qualities of all the creatures and sin corrupts the nature of all creation causing it to do that which is most unnatural to it (in terms of it’s created nature, but most natural to it in terms of it’s sin corrupted nature).

    Just a comment regarding the days of creation and in response to Alex; we have to remember that the biblical account of the creation was not written during the creation process, but probably several hundreds of years afterwards. Moved by the Holy Spirit to write what happened, Moses records in language which people understood, the events of the creation. This means that when he writes 6 days, he is setting forth a period of time known to all mankind as a 24 hour period, regardless of whether the sun had been created or not at the time of the events which he was writing about. The words morning and evening are written for our benefit so that we know that each day had a beginning and an end, just like our days do. It should be easy to understand them therefore, as 6 literal days.

  5. wits0 Says:

    Scott, read Seth and the Buddha – they hardly contradict one another.
    Srth: http://www.nirvikalpa.com/content.php?page=seth3

    We are of Mental Construct like the whole Universe is.
    Buddha said that the beginning of Time could not be found, nor a “Creator God”.

    Also to understand this World and all its various Concepts better, try

    The Children of The Law of One
    & The Lost Teachings of Atlantis
    by Jon Peniel.

    I have d/loaded but have forgotten its source. Just google it up.

    Read Summum : http://www.summum.us/downloads/

    Then it becomes clear that Mankind has floundered with its institutionalized Symbolism aka religion, especially the said to be revealed ones.

  6. wits0 Says:

    No Scott, “sin” is not really what brought us here but “desire”. Ask Buddha, e.g., we did not know better but to hanker for it by previous conditioning. The Bardos, our Bardos dunnit. ;)

  7. Scott Thong Says:

    Well put, Tim. I personally subscribe to careful interpretation of when a verse in the Bible is literal, and when it is figurative.

    For me, the six days can go either way – Moses wasn’t beyong using metaphor, and Genesis 1 could have been revealed to him in a vision that represented what happened, i.e. God could have shown Moses evening and morning to signify time passing.

    That reminds me of when I was debating with Ahnsahnghong cultists over the doctrine that when Jesus returns, all will see Him and acknowledge it. This guy would repeatedly use the straw man argument that non-Ahnsahnghong Christians believe that Jesus will lietrally come riding on a horse in the clouds.

    To quote fromhttp://jamietalkstogod.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/church-of-god-world-mission-society/ comments:

    And when it comes to Acts 1:9, you just simply do not get it.

    I understand that Jesus did not go into heaven as a baby. Do you read carefully what I write Scott??

    He went up in the flesh. He will return in the flesh. It does not mean he has to come floating out of the sky.

    Jesus also said: John 6:42 — They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

    Jesus said he came down from heaven. Did Jesus come floating out of the sky?

    How can you say my citing Elijah is meaningless??

    Let me explain again. Yes, he left in amazing display, and that is how they expect him to return, since that is the way they saw him leave.

    When Elijah came, did he come in amazing display? No he did not.

    In the same way, people misinterpret scripture, take it literally, and think Jesus is going to come out of some magical light show in the sky.

    How foolish. Like I said, Jesus spoke in parables. How foolish of you to think he is literally going to come surfing on a cloud.

    The Bible also says he is going to come riding on a horse.

    So he is going to be on a horse and he and the horse will be on some sort of cloud and somehow, everyone will be able to see him even though the world is round. Riiiight Scott.

    Oh yeah I forgot, God can perform miracles and let everyone see him at the same time.

    Is it really so absurd to literally interpret the two angels’ testimony that “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” to mean He will be seen coming back down from heaven?

    And at the same time, the dood would maintain that whoever does not take the Passover meal is unsaved. As I responded to his above quote:

    And what is the criteria to be used? Why is Jesus speaking in parables when referring to coming down from the sky, but NOT speaking in parables or metaphor when speaking about ‘eating flesh and blood’? Esp. if it is not within Judaism’s kashrut/kosher laws to eat human flesh.

    —————-

    wits0, I agree that desire brought us to where we are, in that the original sin was desire… Desire to be our own master, our own god, our own decider of what is right and wrong – as manifested in the desire for the forbidden fruit.

    See last pic at http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/what-is-the-source-of-magic-in-the-real-world/ for a tiny bit on that.

    I believe that time and space did have a beginning, as evidenced by the Big Bang model. However, if the Cyclic model is correct, both Big Bang’s time-had-a-beginning and an infinitely old existence are simultaneously possible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

    You’ll have to summarize for me the contents or gist of the links you provided though… If you don’t mind.

  8. wits0 Says:

    Scott, when you have to use the term, “sin” you invariably fall back on to a God-Creationist idea. Because “sin”, is an offense against God, you have actually already subscribed to or acknowleged a Creator God in the process, strictly speaking.

    The fact remains than when people uses such a Concept, they must necessarily assume that they are owned by an anthropomorphic “God”.
    Humanity then becomes less disposed to take reponsibility for their own actions, individually and en masse.

    A Personal God concept is more easily unsatisfactory because it’ll always fall back to presuming that God favors themselves more than others in a society that embraces that. An anthromorphic God is an unworthy one. It is a superstition that has demean humanity since Momnotheism began.

    Also since(at least to me), God is a Concept, howbeit the highest one that Mankind NORMALLY is capable of conceiving, it is not a constant or uniform conceptualization. A refined people will hold a more enlightened version while a backward one will imagine a base one by comparision.

    How many people really can conceive of the right take for a God Concept? If one is thus capable, one would’ve realized that the need for one is exhausted of its necessity because few else are capable of an equally high and shared one. Always a Concept of God includes that element of FEAR even when a Jesus has done His job.

  9. wits0 Says:

    Scott, haven’t had the time to read about the Cyclic thing yet. But I should like to suggest that since a beginning of Time could not be found(according to Buddha, e.g.), even the phenomenon of Time is a exactly what it is, part of the conditioned existence which is cyclical and never absolute in any unchanging manner.

    Nothing permanent exists in a Phenomenal Universe, not even Time in a linear fashion. It’s a grand and overwhelming illusion.

    The Universe itself is curve within the vast curve Space that is present. Light does not travel in a straight line consequently.

    Eastern(non Semitic) Cosmology has always held that Nature is Cyclical and the beginning and ending of the Universe is no less so.

  10. wits0 Says:

    Of course, Scott, Time and everything else is REAL to us ; it is so because we are at this level….a level that all sentient beings contribute to its creation. But it depends on where we stand in the greater scheme of things.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    The Cyclic theory basically says that Big Bangs happen, then after enough time gravity pulls the universe back into a Big Crunch, which then creates a new Big Bang and so on… Infinitely. So time can have a beginning in the current universe, yet existence itself can be timelessly infinite.

    —————–

    As for the usage of the terms sin, mental construct, illusion or etc… It all depends on the philosophy one subscribes to.

    Is all reality merely an illusion caused by rebellious emotions? What we perceive dictated by what we are currently capable of perceiving?

    Or is free will itself an illusion caused by randomly activating chemicals and electrical firing in the synapses? Then there is no higher level than the physical existence.

    Or is the conciousness really contained in a soul that is separate from the physical body and brain? And the greater scheme of things under the absolute control of an omniscient being?

    Straightforwardly, my post above (and most of my writings) use a Christian understanding of existence as its idea context. My following comments also assume a Christian philosophical viewpoint, as I attempt to explain Christian theology below.

    The fact remains than when people uses such a Concept, they must necessarily assume that they are owned by an anthropomorphic “God”.
    Humanity then becomes less disposed to take reponsibility for their own actions, individually and en masse.

    I would argue that when one believes he or she is held accountable to a God who is capable of familar concepts such as judgement, anger, disappointment, wrath, love, justice and faithfulness, they are more inclined to behave responsibly.

    A Personal God concept is more easily unsatisfactory because it’ll always fall back to presuming that God favors themselves more than others in a society that embraces that. An anthromorphic God is an unworthy one. It is a superstition that has demean humanity since Momnotheism began.

    I would have to say that’s a generalization, as there are lines of thoelogical thought that call on followers to make themselves the least of all mankind. The very favor that God shows = the call to serve others before themselves. Mother Teresa is the first example that comes to mind. Similarly, the Jews are the Chosen People, but with it comes heavy responsibility.

    Also since(at least to me), God is a Concept, howbeit the highest one that Mankind NORMALLY is capable of conceiving, it is not a constant or uniform conceptualization. A refined people will hold a more enlightened version while a backward one will imagine a base one by comparision.

    The Christian point of view is that there really is an actual existing God, and all contradicting philosophies and alternative concepts of divinity stem from corruptions, delusions and trickery.

  12. wits0 Says:

    “rebellious emotions?”

    A good example may be seen in Darwin’s ammoral rebellion against the dogmatic doctrine of the Church via his presumptuous Evolutionary Theory. But he forgot NOT to throw out the baby with the bath water because he left contemporary people of his era without a moral compass/hope. At least while I may not be a Monotheist in the Christian tradition, I can understand that, in Christian terms, the Church still offers hope and morality unlike the hopelessness of of a Nihilistic chasm.

    Scott, morality and ethics are possible within and outside of Christianity. No sound religion can lay claim to its monopoly. The less politically obsess with mundane powers, the greater that possibility. The more so, the less that becomes.

  13. wits0 Says:

    Scott, “I would argue that when one believes he or she is held accountable to a God who is capable of familar concepts such as judgement, anger, disappointment, wrath, love, justice and faithfulness, they are more inclined to behave responsibly.”

    Agreed but the theology about God had to change with time as Man is more and more influenced by civilizational pressure for changes for the better. In a sense therefore, religion and its interpretation about “God” has to change. The unchangeability of any religion, especially “God” based ones have happened, must happen and will continue to happen no matter what sort of Hell is put in its way and foolish denials employed.

    Change is the way of survival and continuity in Nature, the difference is whether it’s gonna be relatively easy or wantonly hard like a World War 4. Man ultimately has to make that choice.

  14. Jamie Says:

    Current research suggests that the Cyclic theory is wrong and cannot occur. The universe is still expanding, and it has been found to be expanding at an accelarating rate. So much so that there isn’t any chance that the universe will shrink back on itself unless the outwards accelaration stops.

    wits0, you seem to be taking Buddha’s ideas as the basis for some of your arguments such as that the beginning of time cannot be found. Buddha’s teachings about time originated from Hinduism, so I’m guessing you agree with the Hindu version of cosmology. Which version of Buddha’s teachings are you talking about anyway? Mahayana, Hinayana or Theravada?

    Anyway, the Big Bang Theory states that time only began after the bang occurred, before the rapid expansion of the universe began. So, in that sense, time does have an origin and can be traced back to that. Which would thus not require us to fall back onto a cyclical cosmology.

  15. Scott Thong Says:

    I agree that morality and ethics can exist outside Christianity. The only exception I make is atheism, where since there is no absolute source of moral guidelines, all morality is human-made; therefore, it is completely subjective, as the Communists proved.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/fascism-and-bestiality-atheists-please-tell-me-why-i-am-morally-wrong/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/communism-atheism-relative-morality/

    Christianity is different from other religions in that it does not have a prescribed set of specific rules and rituals for everyday life. It is based simply on two underlying principles: Love God, and love mankind.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/morality-of-absolutes-and-relatives/

    All other beahviour stems from that. I doubt these basic principle can be changed much without degrading the humanity of the faith.

    By focusing on the heart of the matter, rather than the law, Christianity has much more freedom and depends much more on the judgement and moral wisdom of its proponents.

    For example, while Islamic sharia law calls for the cutting off of a thief’s hand, Christianity has no comparable edicts – merely the recommendation that believers should earn their daily wages, and not break God’s command ‘Thou shall not covet’.

    With this flexibility, I doubt that any situation exists where the doctrine of love cannot find an acceptable solution – no matter the era, be it in Israel or orbiting Earth. No need for a specially prepared guidebook on which way to face to pray, as long as the heart is sincere it’s all okay. And etc.

  16. wits0 Says:

    Guys d/l and read the Summum Bonum from the link above ; it’s ancient Egyptian origin won’t present so much a “threat” by way of competition kinda like to your beliefs since it isn’t current. ;)

    Jamie, the Abhidharma Pitaka is the deep one in Buddhist teachings, no matter which school.

    Scott, freedom was and is what made Christianity survived.

  17. wits0 Says:

    Actually I wrote a sizeble piece twice but this was lost due to accidental closure of tab(we have to close some when too many gets opened). Disgusted, not doing that again. :(

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Yeah, I had that happen due to a time-out after I wrote THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MALACCA from memory. Arghble! Which is why I do it on Notepad nowadays.

    ———-

    A link to do with my earlier comment that Christianity is very open ended and not constrained by sub-sub-sub clauses:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/cosmopolitan-christianity/

    ———-

    Throughout this discussion, I have neglected the most important thing: The love and care and friendship of personal God.

    I appreciate God who is there to comfort me in times of sadness and worry, who promises to always take care of my needs (to which I can attest having just enough financially every month, no matter what expense might pop up), who promises me: “Yes! This is woman I have chosen for you to marry,” and I can know that there is no person more suitable in the whole world to be my wife.

    It is this assurance, the personal relationship with a personal God, which sets Christianity apart from all other religions and philosophies – not any doctrines or deep theologies or insights into the nature of reality.

    If the chances of every religion being true were exactly equal, I would rather choose Christianity for what it has to offer to humanity in general, and to me in particular.

    And in my educated opinion, the chances of Christianity being factually true are NOT equal. Which is why, by logic and by emotion, I believe it to be true and I choose to adhere to it.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/the-heart-of-my-faith/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/12/04/a-god-who-is-above-all/

    Well, that’s my story.

  19. wits0 Says:

    Scott, there are two sorts of people. One can find a revealed religion good enough, another less so because some find that revealed religion is not really user friendly or convincing. Another comes from the schools of realizable Understanding rather than theism. Christianity will do okay. It has been reformed over time. Love and Freedom makes all the difference between continued viability and ultimate doom.

  20. wits0 Says:

    Scott, I might suggests here that there are good and bad atheists(as there are religious people). Anyone outside the Monotheistic tradition is already an atheist by default.

    A Loony Leftist Liberal who’s shallow, nihilistic unstudied and unlearned is hardly the equal of another who may be a studied and learned Buddhist or Taoist, for example. Anyone who’s tradition and worldview actually follows the ancient Golden Rule of Mankind is in good stead.

  21. Jamie Says:

    Outside monotheistic tradition = atheist by default? I don’t think that that’s necessarily true. There are gods in certain strands of Taoism, similarly in Hinduism there is a pantheon of gods.

    Besides, the definition of atheist doesn’t just mean belief that no God exists, it holds true for a belief that no gods exist either.

  22. wits0 Says:

    Monotheism means the belief of One Almighty Creator God with usually the exclusion/denial of any other Titulery gods.

    Monotheism was tried earlier before the Semitic people like the Jews, e.g., by the Pharoah Akhenaten. It failed to take hold and made a mess of things which his posterity had to clear. It isn’t something that’s so new.

    Buddhists, esp., of the Mahayana/Tantric school believes in the existence Titulery gods but not in the sense that they represent salvation from suffering for humanity. There being a whole pantheon of such.

    It is wrong for Monotheists like the muslims to denigrate Polytheism, e.g. I have personally witnessed the efficaciousness and power of temple deities in helping people. Yes they exist but never demand what a badly conceived Monotheist “God” is said to purportedly make to humanity.

    I think any hidden and wrong reason(behind the allegedly legal aspect) for the many demolishing of Hindu temples lately does not convey a good auspice for this society at large in Malaysia.

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    According to Christian theology, the aid offered by sources other than the Christian God always come with a price, as all other deities and powers apart from God are demonic in origin, albeit disguised as benevolent benefactors.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/01/virusanti-virus-scam-on-the-spiritual-plane/

    My apologies if this sounds offensive, but I am merely explaining fundamentalist Christian theology.

    ———————

    In my opinion, truth is objective rather than subjective – what people believe to be true or false does not MAKE it so. And if truth is objective, we should seek it and embrace it at the exclusion of falsehood.

    If any belief system is proven to be the truth, all else is a lie and we ought to embrace it. That goes for me to – if evolution or global warming or Islam were satisfactority proven to be true and my current beliefs a lie, I would swallow my pride and accept that truth.

    Ergo, if Christianity and its concept of heaven are true, then reincarnation and nonexistence cannot be true, and vice versa. To have both exist simultaneously when (at least) Christianity claims to describe the only outcome is to reveal falsehood in Christianity’s claims.

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    On atheism, I totally agree that atheists can be good and moral people. However, if atheism is true – that is, no higher power exists – then all moality is merely determined by human society. It becomes relative to the situation.

    For example, if all holy texts are disregarded as invalid, then who is to say killing off 100 million people is immoral if 500 million people decide it is moral? Maybe those 100 million people have poor genes that would deteriorate the human race.

    In that case, since only the survival of the human species defines what is ‘moral’, then murder is no longer inherently wrong – as long as it achieves the end of bettering the human race’s quality and survival.

    It is telling that avowed, staunch atheists have killed more people than all other belief systems combined. Yes, Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were also Communists – but they and their entire empires had no moral code that said, “Hey! Killing people is wrong, no matter how justified it may seem to your societal planners!”

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/communism-atheism-relative-morality/

    And even today, millions of innocent babies ae being murdered because they are viewed as an ‘inconvenience’. Again, the needs of established society – a carefree mother or a cash-strapped family – outweigh the value of human life.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/liberal-definition-of-a-person/

  25. Herman Cummings Says:

    A Scientific Prediction From Genesis

    Besides myself, all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.

    There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. The opposing view of evolution is what I call “the Observations of Moses”, which were visions of six days from the past, given to Moses by God, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC. Each day was taken from a different day of the week, each week being the first week from a different geologic age of mankind.

    Having said that, I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis is true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808
    Ephraim7@aol.com

  26. wits0 Says:

    Scott: “…powers apart from God are demonic in origin..” How do you prove or demonstrate(‘demon-strate’) that? :D

    If a man is a good man, does that prove that his “God” is true?

    Can morality be devoid of ethics?

    Does ethics come only from an aforesaid “God” belief?

    Scott, which is true? Light is a wave or a particle? Can you say that it cannot be both? ;)

    Communism and people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, including ideologies such as those of the Nazis and the Talibans all killed people as part of their pedagogy and purpose just to gain mundane power all the same.

    q/ …”I, myself, am a Christian minister, but I am not “establishing” Christianity by promoting The Golden Rule. Simply because most Christians support The Golden Rule does not mean that it “establishes” Christianity, because The Golden Rule is found in the other major religions, also. It is not exclusive to Christianity.” u/q

    http://www.loveallpeople.org/underlyingrule.html

    Ther have been more wars fought in the name of Monotheism since it came into being. The Jihadists and the Talibans are still at it.

  27. Scott Thong Says:

    Can anyone prove that demons exist, and are the source of all non-Godly power? As with all matters of theology, nothing can be proved empirically.

    Logical arguments can only go so far without accepting non-physical claims such as found in Christian belief. Verses quoted from the Bible would not carry an argument far if they are discounted as not being empirically provable by the scientific method.

    But as far as Christian theology goes: The supernatural is either for YHWH, or against YHWH. If Christianity is true, then so is this claim. And if YHWH is ALL that is perfectly good, that which is against YHWH must necessarily be evil.

    If Christianity is not true, then this claim might be false.

    Elaborated at conclusion of the following link:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/what-is-the-source-of-magic-in-the-real-world/

    ————-

    Light is both a wave AND a particle – even though it doesn’t make logical sense to me. Neither does the accepted mechanism known as chemical resonance, which says three different configurations of a molecule exist simultaneously!

    And yet, they are the very definition of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit existing as three yet one. 3 = 1, not 3 together! Makes no sense to the human mind, yet if physics and chemistry can accept dualities and trinities, can not theology as well?

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/the-trinity-examples-in-real-life/

    But on the gist of your question… Morality can come from non-divine sources. But if it does, where does it come from? Merely human decisions – and so what makes one decision any more correct than another? If I say mentally retarded people must be exterminated to preserve resources and the gene pool, who is to say that I am ‘morally wrong’ if my decisions carry as much weight as theirs?

    If morality is NOT decided upon by a higher source – such as an all-wise, all-holy, all-moral God – then any morality we have is but an artificial construct, an illusion of goodness evolved for our own societal survival – and subject to change with the times. So morality and ethics CAN exist without having to come from a ‘god belief’ – but such morality merely places man into the role of god, as the personality cults of Lenin, Stalin and Kim Jong-Il demonstrate.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/morality-of-absolutes-and-relatives/

    And though a man who is good does not prove that his god is real, a man who is bad does a much worse job of convincing!

    ————–

    Although montheism has often been used as an excuse for aggression in the past, careful observation will reveal political motives behind the use of religion as a motivator.

    Using the Crusades as an example, was the slaughter of ‘infidels’ truly in accordance with Christ’s teachings – “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemies”, “thou shalt not commit murder”, “love your fellow man”?

    Thus when a religious believer commits a cruelty, he is going against what his religion teaches. (But see the next link below the lines for a caveat…)

    By contrast, atheism does not have any guidelines on moral behaviour as dictated by a supreme authority. Therefore, when an atheist commits a cruelty, he is not going against any teachings. In fact, he is doing exactly what relative morality permits – whatever he decides is moral, IS moral.

    ————–

    The Golden Rule as applicable to all people – regardless of beliefs – apparently does NOT exist in Islam, according to the textual quotes cited by this writer:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php

    ————-

    PS. I am interested to know, what are your personal reasons for choosing a particular belief system over any others? My own reasons have been explained in the comments above and the accompanying links – logic and empirical historical evidence play a large part due to my scientific and debating background.

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    On Herman Cummings’ comment: There is also another interpretation of Genesis, in which all creation was completed in the very first verse of Genesis, and the remainder of the chapter actually details the preparation of the Promised Land / Eden for human habitation.

    http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/genesis.html

  29. wits0 Says:

    Read the Seth of Jane Roberts, e.g., Scott. Until one spend time, lots of it, researching, one will have to retain some sort of a rigid black and white stricture occuring often enough. ;) Of course if one were already content and convinced that he has found it all, there is little else that will seem worth inquiring into anymore. Monotheists are easily so ensnarled.

    “logic and empirical historical evidence play a large part due to my scientific and debating background.”

    They do and so does an actually open mind that can peer beyond common symbolism behind man-made religion. One needs some abstract capacity to go beyond the physical to take symbolism too literally.

    Confucious and Jesus have expounded the Golden Rule well enough ; their wordings (universally applicable)are well composed and is not disputed. The islamic version however is not really an equivalent since it is exclusive in tone and meaning.

  30. wits0 Says:

    Correction:
    “One needs some abstract capacity to go beyond the physical to NOT take symbolism too literally.”

    Btw, Scott, I like your gravata, it’s really cute. :)

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    Gravatar is from here:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/cats-is-cute/

    Although I had recently toyed with the idea of using the last pic of this post as my gravatar:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/megaton-punch-umno-supporters-punch-guangming-daily-press-photographer/

    ——————

    I suppose my statement of faith can be summarized this way:

    Christianity makes various physical and spiritual claims. The physical claims can be empirically tested for objective truth. If they are overwhelmingly true, then it stands to reason that the spiritual claims are also similarly true even if they are empirically unproveable.

    To elaborate:

    The Bible makes various empirically testable claims, including about historical, geographical, natural, scientific, and logical matters.

    For example, if the Bible records the existence of a certain people (e.g. the Hittites whom Abaraham bought land from in Genesis), or a certain event (e.g. the battle of the 9 kings in Genesis 14), or a certain place (the five covered colonnades of John 5:2), or a certain person (Jesus of Nazareth)… I can check out the truthfulness and accuracy of those claims through archaeological digs or laboratory experiments.

    I would then find that the Hittite empire’s existence was discovered after the Bible’s account of them had been prematurely discredited; the names of the 9 kings are also found in Assyrian tablets; the five colonnades were recently uncovered in Jerusalem; and that various nonChristian ancient sources attest to the existence of a teacher named Yeshu who was sentenced to death for ‘misleading people’.

    From there, I take Jesus’ recorded words in John 3:12 – “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”

    Using the reverse implication, if the earthly things that God’s word tells me have proven to be believable, then the heavenly/spiritual things that it claims should also be believable.

    Related posts for those interested:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/the-jeremiah-tablet-evidence-of-the-bibles-accurate-history/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/isaiah-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/was-christ-crucified-deedat-vs-mcdowell/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/17/the-locked-tomb-mystery-whodunit/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/was-the-bible-changed-reasons-why-it-could-not-have-been/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-internal-evidence-from-acts/

  32. Jim Says:

    Evidence holds up in court, not some dumb “reconciliation” of creationism and evolutionary theory (it takes a ton of evidence to come up with a theory, your ideas aren’t backed by evidence, and by nature cannot even be considered theory/fact).

    Support your claims with reason, logic, and science. A 2,000 year old book proves nothing about a 13 billion year old universe.

    Substantiate your claims empirically, and the intellectual will follow. Substantiate your claims with scripture and authority, and sheep will follow.

  33. The Sin Theory of Evolution - Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums Says:

    […] Sin Theory of Evolution The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design BUUUUURRRR… Check this theory out and tell me what you think. Do you think I’m the puppet master of […]

  34. Scott Thong Says:

    I never said it was a scientific theory. My discussion here is pure theology.

    That 2000 year olf book may not tell much about quantum physics, but it says a lot about human history – which it what it covers anyway.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-cyrus-cylinder-not-isolated-and-not-vague-verification-of-the-bibles-historical-account/

  35. arram117 Says:

    Well, this seems to be a lot of BS.

    Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is not the only religion on the planet? If you take into account what the Bible says about creation, then you would also have to take into account what any man-made faith says from the Gita, the Vedas, the Q’uran, the Old Testament, from the mythology of the Greeks, Mesopotamians, Native Tribes, etc.

    Also, quoting you: “Christianity makes various physical and spiritual claims. The physical claims can be empirically tested for objective truth. If they are overwhelmingly true, then it stands to reason that the spiritual claims are also similarly true even if they are empirically unproveable.”

    That claim is a load of horse manure. You cannot just make assumptions about the observable Universe just because you can arbitrarily connect it to some assumed coincidences that happen to have been recorded by a man or by a group of humans in a 2000 year old text.

    Also, intelligent design is a fundamentally flawed theory, especially with overwhelming evidence for evolution. Looking at an eye for example: Intelligent designers claim that the complex functions of the eye, the lenses, the rods and cones and nerve cells that allow us to see must have been designed by some creator. The thing is, looking from an evolutionary standpoint, we can see a natural evolution of the eye. The first forms of life had small photocells that were used to distinguish between light and dark, millions of years ago. those photocells eventually grouped together for more complex functions and became light patches (such as those found on planaria) used to detect different levels of light. As organisms became more complex, the eye changed the way it worked, from detecting light to actually transmitting light and converting light into electrical signals to be interpreted by the brain, yet the basic function has remained the same: provide a means for the organism to react to the environment in order to maximize its efficiency of locomotion and survival.

    Your theory is interesting, yet, as you yourself have stated, please keep it to a Christian theology class. Do not try to reconcile evolution with creationism or intelligent design, as they are two completely different branches of human thought: evolution deals with science, which is based on observable, empirical evidence which has been proven, while creationism and intelligent design deals with faith, which has been fabricated by the ego of several men in order to try to explain the Universe has they know it.

    Also, on another note: you cannot take the Bible literally. The Bible is a great and moving piece of literary achievement that contains myths and stories that help to explain the human condition: the Bible teaches us about proper morals and values-just because there was a flood in the bible or there were snakes and dinosaurs while Adam and Eve were frolicking in a garden doesn’t mean that that really happened. Also, 2000 years is not all of human history-humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The Vedas were written 3000-5000 years before the Bible. Mesopotamia, India, and China all had great cultures and great achievements long before Jesus of Nazareth made his philosophies. Your arguments are interesting, just be more careful how you word them, and also try to learn more before creating a theory and passing it off as some ultimatum or reconciliation.

  36. Scott Thong Says:

    Dude… It’s just a thought experiment. It’s not like I wrote a scientific paper and submitted it to a journal or directed a film attacking all other beliefs in the world. IT’S JUST AN INTERESTING-TO-MYSELF POST ON MY OWN BLOG. I never even said I really believe it’s a fact.

    You’re jumping all around the various anti-Christian/anti-Bible polemics here, when my little rambling deals solely with evolution in a fundamentalist Christian context. What’s up with the aggro?

    ——————————

    Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is not the only religion on the planet? If you take into account what the Bible says about creation, then you would also have to take into account what any man-made faith says from the Gita, the Vedas, the Q’uran, the Old Testament, from the mythology of the Greeks, Mesopotamians, Native Tribes, etc.

    I do take them into account, and if based solely on the validity, accuracy and historical veravity of each of them fail utterly (except the Old Testament – which is the exact same account that the Bible uses, DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH).

    As Jesus once said, if we can’t believea source when it speaks of earthly matters (i.e. things that we can check and prove/disprove), how about the heavenly matters it claims (i.e. things we cannot investigate ourselves)?

    ——————————

    The thing is, looking from an evolutionary standpoint, we can see a natural evolution of the eye. The first forms of life had small photocells that were used to distinguish between light and dark, millions of years ago. those photocells eventually grouped together for more complex functions and became light patches (such as those found on planaria) used to detect different levels of light. As organisms became more complex, the eye changed the way it worked, from detecting light to actually transmitting light and converting light into electrical signals to be interpreted by the brain

    It seems that you have an oversimplified notion of what the anatomy of a functional eye looks like – it is definitely not a clump of light-sensitive cells.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/10/26/x-men-an-example-of-intelligent-design/

    So how did such a complex organ evolve gradually, if evolving any part first with no support from the other parts would be completely wasted? There’s Irreducible Complexity for ya.

    ——————————

    evolution deals with science, which is based on observable, empirical evidence which has been proven

    Proven proven proven, as the echo chamber goes, but could you please actually show the proof for a change? Some of these gusy actually try:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/please-cite-me-the-evidence-for-evolution-and-global-warming/

    ——————————-

    Also, 2000 years is not all of human history-humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The Vedas were written 3000-5000 years before the Bible. Mesopotamia, India, and China all had great cultures and great achievements long before Jesus of Nazareth made his philosophies

    Yes, but the Old Testament on which the Christianity and Judaism are based on claims that its history extends all the way back to the very first men.

    And when did I claim that 2000 years represents even part of all human history? You’re confusing me with some other Christian bloggers you’ve been bashing lately, haven’t you?

    ——————————–

    Also, quoting you: “Christianity makes various physical and spiritual claims. The physical claims can be empirically tested for objective truth. If they are overwhelmingly true, then it stands to reason that the spiritual claims are also similarly true even if they are empirically unproveable.”

    That claim is a load of horse manure. You cannot just make assumptions about the observable Universe just because you can arbitrarily connect it to some assumed coincidences that happen to have been recorded by a man or by a group of humans in a 2000 year old text.

    The only horse manure seems to be spouted by a certain commentor.

    To wit on your ‘coincidences’ (but you obviously won’t read any of the links, since you already have a pre-formed and dogmatic worldview):

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-cyrus-cylinder-not-isolated-and-not-vague-verification-of-the-bibles-historical-account/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/the-jeremiah-tablet-evidence-of-the-bibles-accurate-history/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/isaiah-in-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/25/was-the-bible-changed-reasons-why-it-could-not-have-been/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-internal-evidence-from-acts/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/was-christ-crucified-deedat-vs-mcdowell/

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/d2y2com-christian-apologetics-article/

    So show me how the Vedas connects with actual recorded historical events. Even ‘coincidental’ ones.

    ——————————

    Your arguments are interesting, just be more careful how you word them, and also try to learn more before creating a theory and passing it off as some ultimatum or reconciliation.

    Seriously, you all act like I’m the Al Gore of Creationism or something. All I did was post an interesting thought I had. It’s not like I went around demanding that those who don’t agree with my idea (which I never stated I actually believe to be true in the first place) be branded as brainless heretics.

    I would apply your own advice to yourself… Be more careful how you word your obnoxious and condescending comments, and also try to actually read the fraggin’ post before claiming that I pass off my writings as some ultimatum or reconciliation.

    Honestly, the impatient hubris of some people.

  37. Craig Says:

    So, it’s pretty good theory, but I think the flaw in it is the fact that you need evil and sin to contrast good. If everything was good then good would not exist because it would look like the “norm.” A white dot is visible on a sheet of black paper, but not on a piece of white paper. So it is kind of ridiculous to say that evolution is a sin. Not to be condescending, but to say that evolution is a way of moving the world back to perfection is ridiculous. It is competition that makes the world thrive not sin. I am a Christian, but I honestly think that Science and God can work together. Science is just an explanation for God’s work…plain and simple.

  38. Scott Thong Says:

    So, it’s a pretty good theory, but I think the flaw in it is the fact that you need evil and sin to contrast good. If everything was good then good would not exist because it would look like the “norm.”

    The counter-example to that would be the question ‘What is cold? What is darkness?’ The answer is, there is no such physical thing as cold or dark – they are merely negative terms to describe the absence of heat or light energy.

    Similarly, evil is merely the absence of good. And hell is merely the absence of God.

    ———————–

    So it is kind of ridiculous to say that evolution is a sin. Not to be condescending, but to say that evolution is a way of moving the world back to perfection is ridiculous.

    Oh no no no no no. No way I am saying that.

    What I mean is, evolution could (possibly and unprovenly) be the result of sin. And IMHO, evolution is not moving the world to perfection, far from it, the opposite is happening – creation is becoming more and more depraved with each generation.

    Only Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice and His eventual second coming can fix all the flaws that mankind’s prideful disobedience introduced to the world.

  39. Craig Says:

    “The counter-example to that would be the question ‘What is cold? What is darkness?’ The answer is, there is no such physical thing as cold or dark – they are merely negative terms to describe the absence of heat or light energy.

    Similarly, evil is merely the absence of good. And hell is merely the absence of God.”

    But how can there be good or heat without cold. If something does not have an opposite it would not exist. Back to the paper analogy a white dot does not exist on a white piece of paper, but does on a black piece of paper (naturally assuming that there IS a white dot on the black paper). Again, this is similar to Good and Evil and God and Hell. God, being omniscient, knew that Lucifer was going to wage a war against heaven when he created him because time does not exist in the eyes of God. My theory is that God created Lucifer to be his opposite. Because Good would not exist without evil. Even before man created sin there was evil, with Lucifer’s temptation.

  40. Scott Thong Says:

    But God existed all by Himself before He created everything that is not-God.

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. – John 1:1-3

    The Word here refers to Jesus Christ.

    Just because not-God had not been created yet, does not make God not exist.

    It is only to a human understanding that heat, light or good cannot be perceived without cold, dark or evil to contrast it with. That problem disappears when we measure things in absolute objective terms.

    For example, three million photons per cubic inch is still three million photons per cubic inch, regardless of how many photons there are in the cubic inch next door. Comparative words like ‘brigther’ or ‘darker’ do not affect the fact of how many photons there are in that cubic inch.

    Even if every space in the universe were filled to the brim with photons, that would not make the universe non-photon filled.

    Similary, to use your white paper example, a white dot on a white paper is still white. Just because we cannot find it among the paper, doesn’t make the dot yellow or red or black. It is still white, but our limited human senses and mind cannot perceive it. The fact of the dot’s whiteness remains, no matter what our opinion.

    Therefore, when there was only God, and later on before the fall of Satan, all existence was filled with good. Even without such thing as lack-of-good (i.e. evil), the fact that everything was filled with good does not change.

    It is only subjective human perceptions where everything is based on relative comparison that we ‘need’ a contrast so that we can understand and appreciate it.

    Does this make sense?

  41. Jamie Says:

    “But how can there be good or heat without cold. If something does not have an opposite it would not exist. Back to the paper analogy a white dot does not exist on a white piece of paper, but does on a black piece of paper (naturally assuming that there IS a white dot on the black paper). Again, this is similar to Good and Evil and God and Hell. God, being omniscient, knew that Lucifer was going to wage a war against heaven when he created him because time does not exist in the eyes of God. My theory is that God created Lucifer to be his opposite. Because Good would not exist without evil. Even before man created sin there was evil, with Lucifer’s temptation.”

    I think that your arguments are not very well thought out. Firstly, heat is the result of the kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. Therefore, there can be heat without cold. More importantly, you are concluding illogically that if we cannot perceive something, it is not there. If there is a white dot on a piece of white paper, there is a white dot on the pice of white paper REGARDLESS of whether we can see it or not. If you deny the existence of the white dot, in essence you are saying things like the world outside this room does not exist because we cannot perceive it. It is a logically flawed argument.

  42. Werewere Says:

    You think a lot. Hold up….
    memo from god…
    o wait there is none because
    THERE IS NO GOD!
    WE ARE SIMPLY A CRAZY COSMIC ACCIDENT LIVING ON A INSIGNIFIGANT PLANET IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE. WE ARE SMALLER THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE. WE ARE SO TEMPORARY THAT NARY A THING HAS CHANGED IN WHOLE GRAND SCHEME FROM OUR DEATH TO BIRTH. NOT THE SCHEME OF JEHOVAH! THE RANDOM NOTHINGNESS!!!
    (caps lock is cruise control for cool, but im being serious)

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    I always thought CAPS LOCK was cruise control for FOOL.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caps_lock#Cultural_significance

  44. Scotty Pebbeles Says:

    http://ahnsahnghong.tripod.com/

    Yes, those ahnsahnghong fruitcakes sure are nutty. Stay away from them.

  45. Ryan seamos Says:

    Not nutty….just too lazy to think.

    http://ahnsahnghong.tripod.com/id21.html

    Point 12 really scares me….they believe in a Mother God? That’s automatic crazy town in my book. You know who else believed in a female God, don’t you…

  46. Hector Manwell Says:

    Current research suggests that the Cyclic theory is wrong and cannot occur. The universe is still expanding, and it has been found to be expanding at an accelarating rate. So much so that there isn’t any chance that the universe will shrink back on itself unless the outwards accelaration stops.

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Who else believed in a female God? Or rather, which group are you talking about in particular?

  48. Pauli Ojala Says:

    Ever saw these figures of Dinoglyfs & Dinolits documented by man in the historical era:

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinosaurs-in-history.htm

    ?

    Here’s one’s critique against the current dating convention:

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Mryr.htm

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Molecular_Clock.htm

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Cambrian_Explosion.html

    pauli.ojala@gmail.com
    Biochemist, drop-out (M.Sci. Master of Sciing)

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

  49. Modusoperandi Says:

    Yes, I’m late to the party, but I’m only here because you posted <a href=”http://breakingspells.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/creationists-baffled/#comment-197″>here.

    Scott Thong: Um, no. You do know that there was death long before homo sapiens sapiens, right? And while your bit about “grass-eating lions” is amusing, in a vaguely terrifying biblical literalist kind of way, there is no evidence to support the claim that before year X all creatures were vegetarian.

    You know how old people complain about how much better things used to be? I think that the Eden tale was written by a grumpy old man. Pity that they didn’t have viagra back then. Imagine just how much more cheery the story could’ve been, then.

    “Evolution is not life getting better and better… “
    Uh, sort of. Evolution is “the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.” (from wikipedia). It’s not better, per se. Natural selection is choosing the most fit (that is, those most able to reproduce successfully), and adaptation is life adapting to fit its natural environment (changes in the latter lead to changes in the former, as well as species that move from one ecological niche to another will adapt to differences in that environment, like the gradual evolution of whales).

    “Evolution away from God’s original and perfect design, quite frankly, looks totally evil!”
    Not evil. “Evil” and “good” imply a moral agent. Nothing runs evolution (there is no one at the switch). To describe it more accurately, as it lacks moral agency, “evolution is heartless”. Mother Nature, literally, does not care.
    I should note, too, that the universe has always had death. Entropy has been around since the beginning (or nearly so. Big bang theory is confusing even to people who know what they’re talking about). You are only here, in part, because of all the things before you (lots of plants and animals died to make you. Lots of plants and animals died to make them. Lot of plants and animals…etc, etc…back several billion years). Even the iron in your blood was produced by a star that “died” before our sun even formed. How trippy is that?

    “EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL!”
    Uh, no? Evolution, merely, is.

    “Now, the evolutionists will spit in your face…”
    Spit? No. Point out the Genesis doesn’t match the facts on the ground, yes.

    “…and claim that a loving Creator could never design such horrible creatures.”
    Read Gen3:16-18 again.

    “So as the atheist-evolutionist argument goes, either God is not loving to design such monsters, or He is not perfect or all-powerful since He couldn’t stop such monsters from arising, or there is simply no Creator God at all!”
    False dichotomy (trichotomy?). There are also possibilities like there is/are gods, but it/they aren’t the one that you’re thinking of (Deism or an infinite number of possible undiscovered gods), or that it is your God, but He’s working in a way that’s different than the way Genesis says He did (theistic evolution or Paul’s glass darkly is an understatement).

    “His original creation was perfect and peaceful, and very agreeable indeed. What happened is that sin caused horrible mutations to appear…”
    Again, these these precede homo sapiens sapiens by a considerable margin. Our species’ time here is a tiny blip on the timeline of life on Earth. Life on Earth, meanwhile, is a minority on the timeline of the universe.

    “More like the work of a loving God who gave His own Son for our sins, or a jealous and rebellious corruptor who enjoys twisting all that is good to become evil?”
    Again, false dichotomy.

    “In the Sin Theory of Evolution, Satan is the Intelligent but Malevolent Designer behind all complex evolution that leads to destructive biological features!”
    Sigh. Natural selection is the non-intelligent designer behind the war between predator and prey, and between competitors within the same ecological niche.

    “too complex to randomly evolve biological adaptations…”
    So far, the ones that you’ve named have reasonable, if incomplete, naturalist explanations for their origins. The eye, for example, appears in a myriad of forms, from light sensitive spots all the way up to the octopus’ beautiful camera eye, and everything in between. It’s not “half an eye”, it’s an eye that isn’t as good as some later versions, but nonetheless provided it’s owner with an advantage. An eyespot doesn’t tell it’s owner that it is about to be eaten (and it’s owner probably doesn’t have enough brain power to do much more than dodge, anyway), but it does tell it when the sun is up, which is good to know if you need to be at work early in the morning.

    “And if he can make the necessary changes within a few generations,”
    He can’t. Evolution happens on scales that baffle the human mind.
    First, evolution doesn’t happen in individuals (minor mutations do), it effects populations. It’s not whether worm #4228 sprouts legs, it’s the combinations of mutations across the gene pool for that species of worm that can eventually lead to them becoming different enough to be considered a new species.
    Second, evolution doesn’t happen fast. It’s over tens of thousands of generations.

    “…then that explains the lack of ‘transitional’ fossils as well.”
    Do you mean besides all of the transitional fossils? That whale like I poster earlier is a good example of “filling the gaps”. Also, all fossils are transitional fossils. Things are on the long, slow road to becoming other things all the time.

    “…such as the very mitochondria providing energy to our cells.”
    You do know that mitochondria probably aren’t originally ours, right? They’re most likely a symbiote that joined another earlier simple creature way, way back in our common history. The history of life is riddled with weirdness like that. Look at horizontal gene transfer, for instance.

    “But of course, I have no hard physical evidence to support this theory… It is merely logical and theological conjecture.”
    Actually, it’s not a theory. It’s more a hypothesis.


    Scott Thong “My uber theory supercedes Darwin noob conjectures.”
    Again, hypothesis. Also, you know that the ToE is more than just Darwin, right? It’s a hundred and fifty years of scientists across a wide variety of disciplines looking at the data, discovering new data and expanding and reinforcing ToE. While he was one of the first people to look around him and put it all together, conflating the modern theory with what it was when Darwin formulated it is practically criminal. Darwin, for example, had neither the quantity of fossils that we have (lots of which have only been found in the last couple of decades), genetics (which Mendel figured out, without knowing about DNA no less, but has only really taken off recently, with computerized gene sequencing and the like), and geology at his time was primitive.

    Tim “…we can be sure about this because death entered in through sin the bible tells us.” & “So, it’s perfectly reasonable to disregard evolution”
    No. When you take the text of a book and have it supercede the evidence on the ground, then it’s the polar opposite of reasonable.

    “we have to remember that the biblical account of the creation was not written during the creation process, but probably several hundreds of years afterwards.”
    You’re off by a factor of over one million for life on Earth and over four million for the Big Bang. Things like the Ussher math work fine for the Bible timeline; the problem is that they don’t match up with the reality-based one.

    “Moved by the Holy Spirit to write what happened, Moses records in language which people understood, the events of the creation.”
    You’re not a big fan of higher criticism, are you?

    Scott Thong “Or is free will itself an illusion caused by randomly activating chemicals and electrical firing in the synapses?”
    Your brain is a bunch of things. Random is not one of them.

    “For example, while Islamic sharia law calls for the cutting off of a thief’s hand, Christianity has no comparable edicts – merely the recommendation that believers should earn their daily wages, and not break God’s command ‘Thou shall not covet’.”
    …ever hear of biblical theonomy?

    The Bible makes various empirically testable claims, including about historical, geographical, natural, scientific, and logical matters.
    You’re right. The Bible does make such claims: 6,000 year old universe, all creatures before homo sapiens sapiens being vegetarian, no common descent for man (first man from dirt, second one from the first), Tower of Babel (as the origin of the differing languages), negligible evidence of 2,000,000 people wandering a 100×150 mile area for 40 years, literal worldwide flood, a family of eight taking care of a non-incosiderable quantity of animals on an enormous boat for the better part of a year, a genetic “pinch” indicating that this family of eight were indeed the ancestors of all people now, man and dinosaurs (as well as, literally, everything else) coexisting, the biblical lineage (“begets”, Jesus’ lineage) ending (as in the Ussher math) way way more recently than other evidence indicates, an earthquake/rending of the temple curtain/eclipse/the dead getting up and wandering around Jerusalem. And that’s just off the top of my head.

    “For example, if the Bible records the existence of a certain people…”
    Now replace “Bible” with “Illiad” or “The Bourne Identity” and see how well that holds up.

    “Using the reverse implication, if the earthly things that God’s word tells me have proven to be believable, then the heavenly/spiritual things that it claims should also be believable.”
    I think you’ve got that backwards. If the big things hold up (supernaturally big, in this case), then the details a probably all right (or close enough).

    “my little rambling deals solely with evolution in a fundamentalist Christian context”
    Shouldn’t it be a lot shorter then?

    Scott Thong “It is only to a human understanding that heat, light or good cannot be perceived without cold, dark or evil to contrast it with. That problem disappears when we measure things in absolute objective terms.” & Craig“…back to the paper analogy a white dot does not exist on a white piece of paper, but does on a black piece of paper”
    And they both show up on a gray piece of paper. Isn’t relativism (at least some forms of it) great? To wit; you don’t need absolute zero to know that, relative to the conditions that man faces, boiling water is hot and ice is cold.

  50. Scott Thong Says:

    You do realize that to even consider my theory (okay, fine, hyposthesis), one has to pre-assume the Biblical creation narrative to be true? If Creationism isn’t even taken into consideration, there’s no point and nothing for me to post about.

    You argue and dissect my post based on a totally naturalist worldview at every point, which frankly defeats the purpose of this post. I can’t exactly discuss the subtleties of God’s personality with you if you dismiss His existence outright.

    But glad to see you killed some time commenting on most of my post and lots of the earlier comments, instead of the usual hit-and-run comments typical passers-by leave.

    —————

    You do know that there was death long before homo sapiens sapiens, right?

    According to naturalism, of course. But not according to the Biblical narrative from which I begin discussing.

    “EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL!”
    Uh, no? Evolution, merely, is.

    You better call up Ma Boucher and tell her Columbus ‘was’ as well lol.

    You’re not a big fan of higher criticism, are you?

    Neither was the writer of The Amber Witch.

    …ever hear of biblical theonomy?

    No, actually, at least not in that particular word. Thanks for the new stuff to read up on.

    You’re right. The Bible does make such claims: 6,000 year old universe,

    Not specifically. The period of each ‘day’ of creation is not stated, which is important when the Sun didn’t exist during the first few ‘days’. Some schools of thought interpret Genesis 1:1 to be the creation of the entire universe and world, with further verses merely referring to the Holy Land or Eden.

    all creatures before homo sapiens sapiens being vegetarian

    Including homo sapiens, until sin.

    And that’s just off the top of my head.

    You might add the existence of an all-powerful, yet intentionally undetectable super-being or the mathematical equation of one human dying can write off the collective sins of at least 6000 years of human wrongdoing.

    Now replace “Bible” with “Illiad” or “The Bourne Identity” and see how well that holds up.

    Straw man comparison. The Illiad contains historical and mythical personalities which can, and have, been proven or disproven, so that’s pretty close. Whereas films like the Bourne Identity do not make claim to being factual accounts. To wit, by your logic I could write a book about you as a superhero who has face-melting powers, compare it to your a factual autobiography of you, and disclaim the biography as fiction.

    Shouldn’t it be a lot shorter then?

    Shouldn’t yours haven’t even begun then?

    To wit; you don’t need absolute zero to know that, relative to the conditions that man faces, boiling water is hot and ice is cold.

    Agreed, but not having an absolute frame of reference means that everything is merely relative.

  51. Modusoperandi Says:

    Scott Thong “But glad to see you killed some time commenting on most of my post and lots of the earlier comments, instead of the usual hit-and-run comments typical passers-by leave.”
    Well, I am special. My mom says so all the time. Then she tightens up the strap for my helmet.

    “Thanks for the new stuff to read up on.”
    Theonomists tend not to advertise as such. Apparently, wanting to stone homosexuals and disobedient offspring isn’t all that popular with the general public.

    “Not specifically. The period of each ‘day’ of creation is not stated, which is important when the Sun didn’t exist during the first few ‘days’.”
    How about a 6-10,000 year-old mankind then? That is where the biblical narrative points, if memory serves.

    “Whereas films like the Bourne Identity…”
    It was a book, first. I haven’t read it.

    “…do not make claim to being factual accounts.”
    Ah, but the only logical position is Bournical inerrancy. Less common is Bournical presuppositionalism, where it is taken as an axiom that the book is both literal and all true and that the Bourne is the One True Bourne (and one of the three parts of Trinity of Identity, Supremacy, Ultamatum). You see, harmonization can help to mend the tattered edges of the novel, and make “secular” history conform to its narrative. Also, it is only inerrant in its original manuscript form, which we don’t have and no one, besides His prophet, Robert Ludlum, has read.

    “Agreed, but not having an absolute frame of reference means that everything is merely relative.”
    Relative to the human condition?

  52. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, I am special. My mom says so all the time. Then she tightens up the strap for my helmet.

    My mum says I’m special because the fairy who brought me dropped me on my head. Repeatedly.

    Also, it is only inerrant in its original manuscript form, which we don’t have and no one, besides His prophet, Robert Ludlum, has read.

    Pah! Ludlum is a medieval witch doctor of superstition and myth.

    The true prophet is Crichton, who holds the keys of Universal Knowledge and new scripts for E.R.

  53. James23 Says:

    Perhaps it has been covered n the blog – so apologies. My question is whether when ‘sin entered the world’ this refers to mankind or to all creation. Consider the short life of some breathing creatures, and also those that promote life and are beneficial (eg bees)

  54. Scott Thong Says:

    Methinks it was all creation – as Paul says, ‘All creation has been groaning’, and just look at all the violent features of plants and animals used to kill one another such as thorns, poison and claws.

  55. matoanInd Says:

    Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    Sure!

  57. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Hi Scott,

    It is always interesting to learn and know more about evolution theory (or just hypothesis), as you all discussed it above (from May 2008 last year which I didn’t notice and/or too busy to read them).

    From Muslims standpoint, we DO believe in evolution, (but of course we believe man (Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus, Pithecanthropus man etc) were not from ape or monkey). As a scientist and a Christian I think you would agree too as we Muslim do. WE believe evolution, genetic, cells are all “MADE IN”/BY GOD, destined and designed by none other than Him. I notice that peoples were a bit “confuse” (or simply refuse to believe) when God works in evolution were disassociated with Him – the Creator. I used to say to a friend, for example the occurrence of lightning. He said.. no, no..science is theory on lightning was so and so..

    I said, yeah..but God made it so. Then you (scientist etc) investigate it, then you called it hypothesis, process or theory. Whatever it is, we (muslims) believe NOTHING in this universe would take place but God’s works, including “evolution”. You all just investigate how they work; you just trying to understand how God made out things around you..

    Only God knows best.

  58. Ron Says:

    Tell me Scott, how exactly this “sin mutagen” spread from the (hypothetical Garden of Eden) in the Middle East to the carnivorous species located on other continents like the polar bears in the cold arctic tundra?

  59. Scott Thong Says:

    Tell me Scott, how exactly this “sin mutagen” spread from the (hypothetical Garden of Eden) in the Middle East to the carnivorous species located on other continents like the polar bears in the cold arctic tundra? – Ron

    Reality-altering shockwave.

    Permeating radiation.

    Atmospheric, ocean and soil-borne viral agents.

    Gradual crowding out of non-sin affected genes through cross breeding with ‘infected’ individuals over time.

    Removal of a fundamental control factor (i.e. God’s direct intervention and sustanence), thereby allowing DNA transcription errors to run wildly out of control.

    An of course, as this post is all about – direct tampering by a malevolent intelligence.

  60. Ron Says:

    Well there’s a log to chew on here. Let’s start off with some firm definitions so we’re all on the same page.

    Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

    Mutagen: Any agent (such as a chemical substance or radiation) that induces mutations by permanently altering the genes or chromosomes.

    Now according to your summary, evolution was initiated through an act of disobedience which you call a sin mutagen. However, you’ve failed to establish a direct cause and effect relationship. How does disregarding a directive ( a non-chemical, non-radioactive agent if you will) cause genetic alterations in an physical organism? Moreover, how would such a mutation transfer to another organism (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, etc) since the text makes no mention of the animal disobedience?

    The second problem is how did the herbivores-turned-carnivores survive in harsh environments with no plant life prior to the fall? Polar bears (omnivores) can survive on shrubs and berries during the short summer months, but would have quickly died out during the long, harsh winter months when vegetation is frozen over and covered in large snowdrifts. Antarctic penguins (carnivores) would have starved out completely without vegetation.

    And why are some animals — like cows, horses, goats, deer, rabbits, buffalo, kangaroos, koalas, sheep, pandas, hamsters, rhinos, zebra, fruit bats, etc — completely immune?

    There’s also a theological problem. Why would God allow Satan to ruin his paradise?

    Finally, your hypothesis runs counter to the biblical account given in Genesis, which states that God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and posted a guard at the eastern periphery.

    “So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Genesis 3:23-24)

    This seems to indicate that the Garden of Eden was an artificially controlled environment, similar to a greenhouse in a dessert.

  61. Steven Says:

    I’ve got to say, awesome post. Of course you could be wrong but I’ve always wondered how to reconcile all the evidence of evolution with all the evidence of the Bible and Spiritual Truth. We need more people like you to wrestle with these difficult questions.
    Peace and Blessings :)

  62. Ron Says:

    Hey, looky here!! Another thread Scott abandoned when the questions got too tough. :)

  63. Scott Thong Says:

    This coming from the One True King of Answers Every Point in Every Counter Comment /sarc

    Fine, so here’s my quick slapdash responses:

    Now according to your summary, evolution was initiated through an act of disobedience which you call a sin mutagen. However, you’ve failed to establish a direct cause and effect relationship. How does disregarding a directive ( a non-chemical, non-radioactive agent if you will) cause genetic alterations in an physical organism?

    You could imagine sin to be like one of those reality-warping McGuffins in sci-fi or superhero stories. Or that disobedience causes a ripple in space-time much like how emotions causes distortions in The Warp (Warhammer 40,000), turning what used to be a nice place into a realm of Chaos and demons.

    *BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!!*

    Shut up Berserkers, that’s the only line you guys ever know how to troll!

    Moreover, how would such a mutation transfer to another organism (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, etc) since the text makes no mention of the animal disobedience?

    The birdies and squirrels didn’t build a nuclear power plant either, but they still got to enjoy Chernobyl.

    The second problem is how did the herbivores-turned-carnivores survive in harsh environments with no plant life prior to the fall?

    We have no record of what the world was like before the fall. Once upon a time, Antarctica was part of tropical Pangea anyway.

    I did flip through a series which postulated that pre-fall Earth was surrounded by floating ice asteroids that countered Earth’s gravitational pull (hence the giant dinosaurs and such) and heavy mist that trapped and distributed heat evenly across the latitudes. The re-entry and melting of said asteroids caused Noah’s flood and subsequently Earth’s full gravity effects.

    (Personally I rubbished it back then, and unless some shred of evidence or better argument turns up, it’s low on list of plausible Creationist theories today.)

    Or maybe we could dig up fossils of ice-eating trees, if the dozens of feet of compacted snow that global warming added in the last 30 years alone would hurry up and melt like the IPCC is asking /snark

    And why are some animals — like cows, horses, goats, deer, rabbits, buffalo, kangaroos, koalas, sheep, pandas, hamsters, rhinos, zebra, fruit bats, etc — completely immune?

    Oh, they get better than horrific upgrades that add +5 to their damage-per-second output.

    They get to be attacked by horrific upgrades that add +5 to the damage-per-second output of predators.

    See how benevolent sin is with the devil’s helping DOS?

    There’s also a theological problem. Why would God allow Satan to ruin his paradise?

    God let mankind choose. We chose The Other Side.

    And then the original prosecuting attorney Satan (The Accuser) used the Supreme Court to pass legislation barring spiritual competition across Dimensional borders in order to bypass a popular vote /in joke sarc+snark

    Luckily Jesus, being The Word, knew Da Rules in and out, and could find a legal loophole for His clients to take advantage of.

    Finally, your hypothesis runs counter to the biblical account given in Genesis, which states that God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and posted a guard at the eastern periphery.

    Let’s imagine this scene as a blockbuster film, maybe titled Return to Eden.

    The near future finds our planet a barren wasteland due to ALL OUT GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR and GLOBAL WARMING that raised temperatures 0.1 degrees (but mostly due to GLOBAL WARMING).

    A secret cabal of rich survivors discovers a mysterious energy flux in the vicinity of the Levant and sends their elite team to investigate a new potential power source. However, a band of desert raiders in Mad Max-esque gear (JUST… WALK AWAY) stumbles upon them.

    As the battle rages on, the constant discharges of plasma weapons rips a hole in space-time to reveal… A PORTAL TO A PARADISICAL WORLD.

    That’s one way to visualize the ‘entrance’ to Eden.

    Oh and then they team up and gang rush the angel guard (who looks like a Ben Ten alien) wielding a lightsaber, invade Eden, and provoke a counter-invasion by The Four Horsemen which leads to Armageddon. Because when has Hollywood ever bothered to be scirpturally accurate?

  64. Ron Says:

    This coming from the One True King of Answers Every Point in Every Counter Comment /sarc

    Got examples? I usually address the main points and ignore the minor ones; I mean, why waste time picking leaves off individually, one at a time, when I can just down the entire tree in one fell swoop?

    You could imagine sin to be like…

    I could imagine a multitude of things — I’m the Wizard of Oz, magic pixies tend my garden, invisible teapots orbit the moons of Jupiter, Elvis is sitting in my bathtub, Al Gore rightfully became President in 2000, a certain Malaysian blogger realizes that over-reliance on sarcasm dramatically weakens his case and decides to engage in honest dialog instead, the entire world finally sees the light of reason and sheds its superstitious beliefs — but if those thing do not manifest themselves in reality, it’s all just idle fantasy.

    The birdies and squirrels didn’t build a nuclear power plant either, but they still got to enjoy Chernobyl.

    Hey, that’s a great analogy for US budget fiasco: Obama didn’t create the financial crisis, but still gets to enjoy the blame for the economic meltdown that followed.

    We have no record of what the world was like before the fall. Once upon a time, Antarctica was part of tropical Pangea anyway.

    Sure we do: they’re called fossil records. The biblical timeline from the creation of Adam to the present day represents a period of around 6,000 years. The timeline from the breakup of Pangea till the present day is estimated at over 200 million years. Therefore the probability of animals migrating to the different land areas before the breakup is nil, because they would have had to make a long, long, long. long, long swim to the other side, then turn around and make an equally long swim back, and cross over a large land mass to reach Noah’s ark, by which point they would have dropped dead of thirst, hunger and exhaustion.

    See how benevolent sin is with the devil’s helping DOS?

    DOS = Disk Operating System

    Did the devil use computers? And does that mean that Bill Gates doesn’t own the copyright? How will I be affected if I use a Mac? Or switch to Linux (the socialist operating system)?

    God let mankind choose. We chose The Other Side.

    According to the Bible, we are born into sin — i.e., we’re born defective — so where’s the choice? It’s like saying that someone born with epilepsy can decide whether or not to have a seizure.

    And then the original prosecuting attorney Satan (The Accuser) used the Supreme Court to pass legislation barring spiritual competition across Dimensional borders in order to bypass a popular vote /in joke sarc+snark

    Calling the Republicans satanic seem a bit harsh, especially since I don’t share in the theist’s religious delusions. I’m more inclined to believe that rabid conservatism is a genetic disorder acquired at birth, or perhaps even a vestige of an evolutionary aberration which will eventually fade out and become benign via natural selection. In any case, I remain hopeful that medical research will one day discover a cure or vaccine to treat the millions of people afflicted by this horribly debilitating illness.

    Luckily Jesus, being The Word,

    I think you’re misinformed:

    , knew Da Rules in and out, and could find a legal loophole for His clients to take advantage of.

    No surprise there. Christianity is all about seeking out loopholes, and it’s had almost 2,000 years of practice.

    Let’s imagine this scene as a blockbuster film, maybe titled Return to Eden.

    You certainly have an active imagination; I’ll grant that. Ever thought of becoming a script writer for FOX news? I think you’d be a perfect fit, maybe even a commentator. You could call your segment: Great Scott: Those Liberals Suck!!

  65. Scott Thong Says:

    Got examples? I usually address the main points and ignore the minor ones; I mean, why waste time picking leaves off individually, one at a time, when I can just down the entire tree in one fell swoop?

    Great concept, let’s say I borrow it for subsequent polemic attacks on the Bible.

    Oh wait, I already do that.

    I could imagine a multitude of things — I’m the Wizard of Oz, magic pixies tend my garden, invisible teapots orbit the moons of Jupiter, Elvis is sitting in my bathtub, Al Gore rightfully became President in 2000, a certain Malaysian blogger realizes that over-reliance on sarcasm dramatically weakens his case and decides to engage in honest dialog instead, the entire world finally sees the light of reason and sheds its superstitious beliefs — but if those thing do not manifest themselves in reality, it’s all just idle fantasy.

    Fair enough if you want to belittle and ignore my honest illustration.

    Here are some concepts that were fantastically improbable back in the day, but have turned out to be true: Space flight, in-vitro fertilization, nanotechnology, alternate dimensions.

    The weight of sci-fi history is on my side.

    Hey, that’s a great analogy for US budget fiasco: Obama didn’t create the financial crisis, but still gets to enjoy the blame for the economic meltdown that followed.

    As AoSHQ has said, the people didn’t vote for Obama to give them Bush’s Third Term… They voted for him to fix the economy.

    And definitely not make it WORSE.

    So, how come Captain Messianically-Wonderful can’t accomplish what a hack actor could back in the ’80s?

    Speaking of economic headwinds, Reagan “inherited” a GDP rate of -3.2 percent. You inherited a GDP rate of -4.9 percent. Two and a half years after Reagan took office, however, GDP was at 5.1 percent (and exploded to 9.3 percent the next quarter). Two and a half years after you took office GDP growth is at 1.3 percent (and as likely to implode as explode next quarter).

    Oh I don’t know, maybe it’s because of their DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED POLICIES???

    The actual results of the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s were very similar to the results of later tax-rate cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and George. W. Bush administrations — namely, rising output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the rising incomes, though the tax rates had been lowered.

    Cut taxes = Boost economy + Reduce unemployment + Slash deficit

    Is that so hard, Harvard Scholar in Chief?

    DOS = Disk Operating System

    Did the devil use computers?

    Yes, and in a typing competition, Jesus won because He saves.

    According to the Bible, we are born into sin — i.e., we’re born defective — so where’s the choice? It’s like saying that someone born with epilepsy can decide whether or not to have a seizure.

    You can choose to accept Jesus’ reformat and version upgrade, or stick with Disobedience Operating System.

    Calling the Republicans satanic seem a bit harsh, especially since I don’t share in the theist’s religious delusions. I’m more inclined to believe that rabid conservatism is a genetic disorder acquired at birth, or perhaps even a vestige of an evolutionary aberration which will eventually fade out and become benign via natural selection.

    Well if you consider the purgings by Nationalsozialismus, Stalinists and White House Press Corp Invite Lists to be natural selection, it happens every now and then.

    You certainly have an active imagination; I’ll grant that. Ever thought of becoming a script writer for FOX news? I think you’d be a perfect fit, maybe even a commentator. You could call your segment: Great Scott: Those Liberals Suck!!

    I’d get you a job there too, but I think MSNBC has dibs on all the condescending spittle-flying insult pros.

  66. Scott Thong Says:

    Sure we do: they’re called fossil records.

    Eh, I meant that there are none mentioned in the Bible with regards to your harsh locales. Thought it would be clear from the context.

  67. Age Says:

    The Bible says Adam was created on the 6th day. The Bible also states Adam lived to be 930 years old. Now, if the word day is ambiguous and means millions or billions of years, that clearly contradicts Adams lifespan of 930 years. We have a problem, don’t we?

    Also, the Bible said Adam fell. When God made everything, IT WAS PERFECT, including Adam!!!. When Adam sinned, God cursed all of creation. This contradicts evolution, which claims we are evolving and therefore are becoming more perfect. Anyhow, this resulted in the “Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice” as Darwin stated.

    Also, when God initially created man and the animals, they were vegetarian. It was after the fall where God said man and animals can eat meat.

    God created us in his own image (spiritually). Why would He take millions of years to do this? Genesis mentions in Chapter 1:8 the evening and the morning. What does this have to do with millions or billions of years? Days have evenings and mornings.

    Evolution and Genesis have a different order in which things were created. Genesis states the earth was created before the sun, evolution says the opposite. Also, the Bible states that plants and animals reproduce AFTER THEIR KIND. Evolution says everything evolved from primordial goo.

    “Do you mean besides all of the transitional fossils? That whale like I poster earlier is a good example of “filling the gaps”. Also, all fossils are transitional fossils. Things are on the long, slow road to becoming other things all the time.” You’re kidding right? You are talking about a poster. There have not been any transitional fossils found. Don’t mistake a drawing depicting so called transitions as proof of transitional lifeforms. What we need is hard, solid evidence. Not a drawing.

    Look. If you believe in the Bible and God’s word, and God is omnipotent and infallible, why are you trying to reconcile fallible man’s theories which are often riddled with errors with God?

  68. Scott Thong Says:

    The Bible says Adam was created on the 6th day. The Bible also states Adam lived to be 930 years old. Now, if the word day is ambiguous and means millions or billions of years, that clearly contradicts Adams lifespan of 930 years. We have a problem, don’t we?

    Noted on the meaning of day. I’ve recently learnt that the use of ‘day’ to mean ‘a period of indefinite time’ does exist in Hebrew, however it is exceedingly rare.

    That said, this does not make your argument sound. The use of ‘day’ in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years and ‘years’ elsewhere to mean ordinary years do not contradict one another.

    Also, the Bible said Adam fell. When God made everything, IT WAS PERFECT, including Adam!!!. When Adam sinned, God cursed all of creation. This contradicts evolution, which claims we are evolving and therefore are becoming more perfect. Anyhow, this resulted in the “Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice” as Darwin stated.

    Eh, you completely missed the point of my post, didn’t you.

    Creationism obviously is contradictory to Darwinistic evolution. Intelligent design is also contradictory to a lesser extent.

    A melding of the three as I did above would of course have differences from any of the original theories.

    Also, when God initially created man and the animals, they were vegetarian. It was after the fall where God said man and animals can eat meat.

    Yes, agreed. I don’t see where that jars against my post.

    God created us in his own image (spiritually). Why would He take millions of years to do this?

    Seeing as Adam was specially created from clay, even in the ‘indefinite period of millions of years’ theory, humans could have been created in an instant.

    Genesis mentions in Chapter 1:8 the evening and the morning. What does this have to do with millions or billions of years? Days have evenings and mornings.

    Agreed, I also recently read the argument that evening and morning don’t gel with the ‘indefinite period’ idea. However, note this: On what day does the Bible say the Sun was created? So what do ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ mean during the days before the Sun’s creation?

    Evolution and Genesis have a different order in which things were created. Genesis states the earth was created before the sun, evolution says the opposite.

    Eh, I think you mean Cosmology, not evolution. Evolution only deals with organic life.

    Also, the Bible states that plants and animals reproduce AFTER THEIR KIND. Evolution says everything evolved from primordial goo.

    I think it’s pretty clear by now that the Bible is at odds with Darwinistic evolution.

    Anyway, in my Sin Theory, all ‘kinds’ of animals and life forms already were created by God. All that Sin and the devil’s influence did was to add horrible features to these existing life forms.

    You’re kidding right? You are talking about a poster. There have not been any transitional fossils found.

    That was a comment by Modusoperandi, not me.

    For the record, I am unconvinced by so-called transitional fossils.

    Look. If you believe in the Bible and God’s word, and God is omnipotent and infallible, why are you trying to reconcile fallible man’s theories which are often riddled with errors with God?

    It’s a personal drive of mine. I fully believe in the truth of the Bible. However I also believe that there are many little details that are not included in the Bible that we, using our God-given minds, are able to find out.

    For instance, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ This is known as creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. When the Big Bang theory became accepted due to scientific evidence, Christians embraced it – because it agreed with the Christian belief that everything was created out of ‘nothing’.

    This doesn’t mean that Big Bang theory is 100% in agreement with the Bible. The secular theory posits that ‘something’ caused the Big Bang to happen – but definitely NOT God. So for Christians, we just discard that part and assume that God caused the Big Bang.

    Could God have created the universe without going through a Big Bang or some other process? Undoubtedly. But what He chose to use is not up to us to dictate, but to discover. God used the Israelites to (try) and cleanse the Promised Land of evil instead of dropping brimstone on it, right? He has His own ways and reasons.

    See also Physicists Believe in God (Or At Least a Creator or Designer): A Collection of Quotes. There is nothing that says science and the Bible must disagree. If a certain science disagrees with the Bible (such as Steady State theory) – why, then it must be wrong and will eventually be disproven!

    So I don’t see any reason why evolution – with the removal and tweaking of some parts that disagree with the Bible – cannot be made to reconcile with God’s revealed word.

  69. Ron Says:

    This contradicts evolution, which claims we are evolving and therefore are becoming more perfect.

    That is not what the evolution claims.

    Evolution and Genesis have a different order in which things were created. Genesis states the earth was created before the sun, evolution says the opposite. Also, the Bible states that plants and animals reproduce AFTER THEIR KIND. Evolution says everything evolved from primordial goo.

    The Genesis myth states there was creator; evolution does not. Furthermore, evolution explains the origins of species, not the the universe — that’s cosmology. Nor does evolution say everything evolved from primordial goo.

  70. theory Says:

    organizational theory…

    […]The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  71. ortopedia Says:

    ortopedia…

    […]The Sin Theory of Evolution – Reconciling Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[…]…

  72. Jese Temo Says:

    Thank you scot, but I think the sin theory is bigger than just the devil meddling with biological aspects of creation. One must remember that Lucifer was able to convince a third of the angelic host to his side and in order to do that the concept of sin must have been pretty convincing in order to persuade them to come to his side. And they were not really fools.
    Sin as we now see it is a only a small part of a very good idea that was able to convince a third of the angels. Remember the Devil boasting that his throne will be higher than God’s? Well, sin in its entirety is the survival of the fittest.
    For example, three brothers, the eldest is strong but not too clever. The middle brother is not only the brightest and fairest but also the strongest. The last one is sickly and not very bright but very cunning.
    The concept of sin (note, I am not adding a negative value to the word) is that of the three brothers the middle one gets the girl and successfully raises a brood of sons who then gets naturally selected so that after twenty generations the outcome would be superbeings.
    This was why Lucifer was so sure that his throne would be higher than God’s. But of course we know that it is not always the fairest and the best that survives and gets the girl. Because while the two brothers are asleep one night the youngest who is sickly and weak but cunning slits their throats and ends up raising a brood of sons who are sickly and weak but cunning.
    God’s Love system where the strong look after the weak as oppose to the Deveils sin system where the strong survive and the weak are eliminated can be also demonstrated in the economy system of the USA and India. They were both colonials of the British empire. India was full of Gold and spices while Americas had nothing much. Today India has about three or four hundred million people who are richer than the average american while the majority of the rest of the more than a billion people go to sleep each night on a hungry stomach.
    If India was to go up against America today in just about any area of life we all know who will win. Two systems, one clearly based on Christian principals that is based on God;s Love system when starting off and the other, I don’t know what is it based on.
    The Devils is today well aware that his seemingly clever idea then is not so clever after all. And his biggest hope now is for everyone on this earth to live by his sin system therefore making the argument to God that when it comes to the crunch, humans will revert to the survival of the fittest. Therefore it is God’s fault since He created us as such.
    As long as there are a few left who refuse to live by the sin system. People who at work refuse to subotage their rival in order to get the promotion. People with honour who refuse to tell a lie even if it means their death. The Devil has no hope.

  73. Early Man: From Science to Art.. | weehingthong Says:

    […] Please Cite Me the Evidence for Evolution and Global Warming […]

  74. ssdgh11 Says:

    The most stupid thing I’ve ever read.This blog on it’s whole is an representation of ‘Argument from Ignorance’.Go educate yourself on physic,astrophysic,astronomy,cosmology,biology,geology and many more branches of science.Without this God,Universe can exist.Evolution can happen.Life can exist.Don’t be ignorant.

  75. Scott Thong Says:

    Hey there, hold your outraged horses.

    I am merely theorizing within the assumption that Creationism, Evolution and Intelligent Design are all applicable. You’ll note that my theory doesn’t fully gel with any of the mainstream concepts of either of the three.

  76. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Since atheists also agree that several billion yrs ago planet Earth, stars and the Universe itself were not there, there must be a starting point, a “turning point” when did everything started to exist..especially the existence of the first ever thing/creature. Atheists should explain it, not just by saying “evolution”.. “from gaseous form” bla. bla etc. Otherwise they maybe believing in something which is, “doubtful” etc. and they themselve are not sure.

    I wonder the amount of the mass and matters we have today in our environment,, don’t forget…including those in the other planets, stars..billions og them! From where did they come from, since at one point, long long time ago they were not there! “From “gaseous form? Suddenly..from non existence to exist ? The amount of land, sand, water, minerals…not only too much…(imagine the size of one planet for example Antares, which is hundreds times that of the Earth in size ! What about the mass of other billions of other stars and planets?

    Where did all those mass come from..or originate, since billion of yrs ago they did not exist?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: