Creation vs. Evolution II

6days

New member
gcThomas said:
You said he was a*creationist...
Yes...Louis Pasteur was a creationist. *He said "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” His son in law wrote that faith in God and the virtues of the Gospels pervaded Pasteur's whole life.*
gcThomas said:
Pasteur said*nothing*about his work being inspired by anything other than a materialist scientific approach.
You are confusing two different things. *Most of the founding fathers of modern science believed the Bible; that God had created an orderly creation. *A belief in an orderly Creator, and an orderly creation was the basis for Pasteur's science.*

Pasteur performed science using the scientific method...believing in the Biblical Creator, and rejecting common ancestry beliefs.*Common ancestry beliefs, then and now, *have never been a positive force in developing vaccines and antibiotics.
 

gcthomas

New member
Yes...Louis Pasteur was a creationist. *He said "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” His son in law wrote that faith in God and the virtues of the Gospels pervaded Pasteur's whole life.*

You are confusing two different things. *Most of the founding fathers of modern science believed the Bible; that God had created an orderly creation. *A belief in an orderly Creator, and an orderly creation was the basis for Pasteur's science.*

Pasteur performed science using the scientific method...believing in the Biblical Creator, and rejecting common ancestry beliefs.*Common ancestry beliefs, then and now, *have never been a positive force in developing vaccines and antibiotics.

I don't think you found a quote of his that says he rejected common ancestry. I think you just made that up - lied about it, as it were.

Please prove you are not a liar: show where he rejected the ideas of common ancestry. Good luck.
 

Jose Fly

New member
This is yet another one of 6days' creationist talking points that don't really make sense. Apparently it's something like "Here's some scientists who believed in the Christian God, therefore.....something". But of course we can just as easily say "Here's some scientists who didn't believe in the Christian God, therefore.....something".

:idunno:
 

6days

New member
gcThomas said:
I*don't think you found a quote of his that says he rejected common ancestry. I think you just made that up - lied about it, as it were
Agnostic Charles Darwin tried to explain life without the need of a Creator. Darwinian evolution embraced that belief system attempting to explain design, without a designer. The natural extension of that belief lead many early evolutionists to embrace spontaneous generation. (Now it seems modern evolutionists are once again believing life can pop into existence)
Pasteur was the opposite of Darwin, and seen the design in nature as evidence for the Creator. He is responsible for the law of biogenesis - life comes from life. Christians know who the Author of life is.
Pasteur's experiments and conclusions were met with skepticism from evolutionists because he believed organisms could change / evolve (emperical science)but rejected creative powers of natural selection ie. Darwinism (common ancestry). *As one author explained "Pasteur’s understanding that virulence could evolve was, in fact, the intuitive basis for his work on vaccines. His skepticism towards Darwin’s theory focused on asking for experimental confirmation for Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism, natural selection." *That quote from 'Skeptic' magazine attempting to discredit and downplay Pasteur's creationist beliefs. ( Article titled 'Was Louis Pasteur anti-evolution')*

The science of microbiology and foundational work on vaccines was due to a scientist who believed in the Creator God of the Bible. His science, or his conclusions are based on emperical science... not ever a hint of common ancestry beliefs. *Likewise today... science is performed based on emperical science...what we observe today, and not our beliefs about the past.*
 

redfern

Active member
Dear redfern,

Who are ...

Michael
OK, Michael, I realize there are people who feel it is their obligation in life to continually ram their perverse ideas into the faces of others. I hadn’t realized you were one of those sorry specimens. So go ahead, preach, threaten, beg – whatever gives you the jollies you relish – but be aware that I can ignore your posts a lot faster than you can excrete them.
 

gcthomas

New member
Agnostic Charles Darwin tried to explain life without the need of a Creator. Darwinian evolution embraced that belief system attempting to explain design, without a designer. The natural extension of that belief lead many early evolutionists to embrace spontaneous generation. (Now it seems modern evolutionists are once again believing life can pop into existence)
Pasteur was the opposite of Darwin, and seen the design in nature as evidence for the Creator. He is responsible for the law of biogenesis - life comes from life. Christians know who the Author of life is.
Pasteur's experiments and conclusions were met with skepticism from evolutionists because he believed organisms could change / evolve (emperical science)but rejected creative powers of natural selection ie. Darwinism (common ancestry). *As one author explained "Pasteur’s understanding that virulence could evolve was, in fact, the intuitive basis for his work on vaccines. His skepticism towards Darwin’s theory focused on asking for experimental confirmation for Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism, natural selection." *That quote from 'Skeptic' magazine attempting to discredit and downplay Pasteur's creationist beliefs. ( Article titled 'Was Louis Pasteur anti-evolution')*

The science of microbiology and foundational work on vaccines was due to a scientist who believed in the Creator God of the Bible. His science, or his conclusions are based on emperical science... not ever a hint of common ancestry beliefs. *Likewise today... science is performed based on emperical science...what we observe today, and not our beliefs about the past.*

Louis Pasteur said:
Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Piling on here....

Agnostic Charles Darwin tried to explain life without the need of a Creator.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
 

gcthomas

New member
Do you think 6 days knows when he is just making stuff up that he just thinks ought to be true of the world is as he thinks it is?
 

6days

New member
GC is using fabricated quotes in an attempt to re-write history
gcThomas said:
(Pasteur said) Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."
You have been snookered by a dishonest source...Talkorigins?

Honest atheists admit this quote does not appear authentic.
The controversy is whether the parenthetical phrase mentioning millions of years was actually written by Pasteur. At this blog, "Honey" argues that the book that this quote comes from sometimes inserts words in parenthesis that do not appear in the original quote. Further, she points out that an almost identical quote appears at*The Life and Works of Louis Pasteur, but it does not have the phrase in parentheses. I have paged through that book, and it is indeed possible that some of the comments in parenthesis look as though they*may*be explanatory material added by a translator or commentator, but I do not know. Particularly, I cannot tell if the phrase in question is part of the original quote or not. Accordingly, I have noted that on*the web page*where I quote it
http://mindsetfree.blogspot.ca/2007/05/louis-pasteur-hero-of-science.html?m=1
 

gcthomas

New member
GC is using fabricated quotes in an attempt to re-write history

You have been snookered by a dishonest source...Talkorigins?

Honest atheists admit this quote does not appear authentic.
The controversy is whether the parenthetical phrase mentioning millions of years was actually written by Pasteur. At this blog, "Honey" argues that the book that this quote comes from sometimes inserts words in parenthesis that do not appear in the original quote. Further, she points out that an almost identical quote appears at*The Life and Works of Louis Pasteur, but it does not have the phrase in parentheses. I have paged through that book, and it is indeed possible that some of the comments in parenthesis look as though they*may*be explanatory material added by a translator or commentator, but I do not know. Particularly, I cannot tell if the phrase in question is part of the original quote or not. Accordingly, I have noted that on*the web page*where I quote it
http://mindsetfree.blogspot.ca/2007/05/louis-pasteur-hero-of-science.html?m=1

You have repeated misquotes several times in this discussion, hypocrite. Even you quoted link doesn't fund any evidence of wrongdoing. Just suspicion.

Have you got that quote where Louis dismisses evolution, yet? We're waiting, but not holding our breadths.
 

6days

New member
Jose trying hard to prove 6days wrong... but once again fails...awwwww :)
Darwin rejected Christianity, never aving accepted Christ as Savior and described himsef as agnostic.
Piling on here....
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Darwin responded “my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” He then uses the term coined by T. H. Huxley, his follower and fierce advocate, when he continued, “I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/religion2.html
 

6days

New member
You have repeated misquotes several times in this discussion, hypocrite. Even you quoted link doesn't fund any evidence of wrongdoing. Just suspicion.

Have you got that quote where Louis dismisses evolution, yet? We're waiting, but not holding our breadths.
You are sounding angry GC.
Nobody said Pasteur dismissed evolution...adaptation. . He did use empirical science noticing how organisms change and adapt. He is perhaps one of the most famous biologists ever, and none of his conclusions had a thing to do with common ancestry beliefs.
Instead Pasteur praised the Creator God of the Bible for evidences of Him in nature.
(And...the quote you used does seem it may have been fabricated; correct?0
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understood otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.

Partially quoted in René Dubos, Louis Pasteur: Free Lance of Science, Da Capo Press, Inc., 1950. p 396.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Genesis days absolutely are 24 hour days. We know that from Hebrew context.
Test for you.
Gen. 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4*This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

The word 'day' is used twice there. Does the word have the same meaning in both verses? How do you determine the meaning?

What makes you think that Genesis days are 24-hour days? The Scriptures you quote blast apart your idea. First of all, the seventh day was not 24 hours long, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS long. We can see this from the N.T. where the writer of Hebrews speaks of God's rest-day.

"...I [God] became disgusted with this generation and said, 'They always go astray in their hearts, and they have not come to know my ways.' So I swore in my anger, 'They shall not enter into my rest.'" (Hebrews 3:10,11)

"Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into his rest, let us fear that someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it....For we who have faith DO enter into his rest....For in one place he has said of the seventh day as follows: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,' and again in this place: 'They shall not enter into my rest.' Since, therefore, it remains for some to enter into it, and those to whom the good news was first declared did not enter in because of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:1-6; see the whole chapter)

Looking at Genesis 2:4, it is again as plain as day that "day" does not mean a literal 24 hours. It says that the heavens and earth were created, "in the day that God made them. You would say that He created them ALL in a 24-hour span of time? Must be, if you take "day" to mean 24 hours!


Clearly, God's "day of rest" continues. It will end after Christ's Millennial Reign, as any serious student of the Scriptures can undoubtedly see.

At Genesis 1:4,5 the word "day" refers to daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime, suggesting no particular amount of time. The record thereafter goes on to use the word "day" to refer to other units of time of varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek scriptures, the word "day" is used in both a literal AND a figurative sense, and should not be strictly assumed to be 24-hour days.

In addition, there is no indication (other than somebody's imagination) that the Hebrews used hours in dividing up the day prior to the Babylonian exile. Check this out: The word "hour" found at Daniel 3:6,15; 4:19,33; 5:5 in the KJV is translated from the Aramaic word sha'ah', which, literally, means "a look" and is more correctly translated "a moment."

The use of hours by the Jews, however, did come into regular practice following the exile.

Get your facts straight before you pontificate (oh I made a cool little saying!). To sum up....you ask how is the meaning of "day" determined? I think I have shown that, since we are STILL in God's rest day, that "day" is at least seven thousand years long. The "day" that God made the earth and the heavens is not a 24-hour period either, seeing as the heavens themselves have been around for billions of years. The Bible does not conflict with Science, as you have taken upon yourself to make it seem.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Jose trying hard to prove 6days wrong... but once again fails...awwwww :)
Darwin rejected Christianity, never aving accepted Christ as Savior and described himsef as agnostic.

Again, you just can't help yourself. Remember, this is what you said, "Charles Darwin tried to explain life without the need of a Creator." Yet we know for a fact that he wrote in The Origin of Species, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one".

Your talking point is demonstrably wrong. But as we've seen with you countless times before, I'm sure you'll just keep on repeating it, knowing full well it's a lie.
 

KingdomRose

New member
Thanks...I corrected it.

You were initially correct. The New American Standard Bible renders Genesis 2:3,4 this way:

"(3)Then God blessed the seventh DAY and sanctified it, because He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (4) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD God made earth and heaven."

The King James renders it that way also, as does every other version I have looked at.


Why confuse this, patrick jane?
 

Jose Fly

New member
Do you think 6 days knows when he is just making stuff up that he just thinks ought to be true of the world is as he thinks it is?

Unfortunately, this sort of blatant dishonesty is fairly common among fundamentalist creationists in internet forums. Several years ago one of my old friends told a creationist who acted very much like 6days (could only post shallow talking points, and kept repeating them no matter how many times they'd been debunked), "I don't think you even know the difference between the truth and a lie".

His point was that with some creationists, "truth" means "that which agrees with my religious beliefs" and "lie" means "that which goes against my religious beliefs". So when 6days says Darwin tried to explain life "without a creator", that is "true" simply because it is consistent with his creationist beliefs, regardless of the fact that it's demonstrably false by any objective criteria (e.g., the fact that Darwin specifically wrote about life coming about via a creator in The Origin of Species).

It's basically the same framework AiG operates under ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record").

If it agrees with the Bible, it's true. If it doesn't, it's false. No need to think beyond those extremely simplistic terms. It's emotionally safe and resolves all potential conflicts quickly and easily.

It's also intellectually dishonest, but I don't think that's ever been a real concern among that group.
 

Jose Fly

New member
So if Pasteur actually wrote...

"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages, has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."

How does that change anything? He's basically saying "It looks like these things are getting more virulent, which should concern us....unless we want to believe these pathogens are done evolving, and that ain't likely".

Doesn't sound like anything a person who rejected evolution would say. :idunno:
 

6days

New member
You were initially correct. The New American Standard Bible renders Genesis 2:3,4 this way:

"(3)Then God blessed the seventh DAY and sanctified it, because He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (4) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY that the LORD God made earth and heaven."

The King James renders it that way also, as does every other version I have looked at.

2 verses
the word day used twice
Both easy to understand in context...Same as the hundreds of other times 'day' is used in the OT.
 

6days

New member
KingdomRose said:
What makes you think that Genesis days are 24-hour days?
Several reasons from scripture we know that to be true. Also the The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than 24 hour days in Genesis 1. James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford said,
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
KingdomRose said:
The Scriptures you quote blast apart your idea.
Perhaps you think your 'interpretation' blows it apart, but scripture says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
KingdomRose said:
First of all, the seventh day was not 24 hours long, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS long. We can see this from the N.T. where the writer of Hebrews speaks of God's rest-day.
...(Hebrews 3:10,11)
...(Hebrews 4:1-6; see the whole chapter)
That is almost a laughable stretch of 'logic' trying to add billions of years into scripture. There are many things wrong with your suggestion that the 7th day continues.
a) You seem to believe that God blessed and sanctified and cursed the exact same day? Either that, or when did the 8th day begin?
b) Genesis is not saying that God wants us to share a literal 7th day rest from the 6 days of creation. He said He rested to typify for us a literal day of rest.
c) The narrative of the Hebrew text provides no basisfo believing the 7th day was any different length of time than the preceeding six days.
d) EVEN IF... the 7th day was a longer period than 24 hours it says nothing about the length of the other 6 days (Each with morning and evening)
e) The Hebrews text tells that God's creative activity ended with the beginning of day 7; it in no way suggests the 7th day has continued into the present.
f) God rested...past tense.
g) Hebrews is warning not to be disobedient like the Israelites in the wilderness. Because of their hard hearts they could not enter into a "rest" - Canaan. The Hebrew word used by David was 'menuwchah'... a word referring to a place, or abode of resting. Hebrews verses uses the same concept using the Greek word ' katapausis'.* Verse 9 of Hebrews 4 (You stopped too soon at v.6) promises a future day of rest. He uses a special word for Sabbath 'Sabbatismos' , which seems to suggest that when the believers work is complete, we will live with Christ in eternity...our rest. In Hebrews God uses the picture of the creations 7th day of rest to provide a picture Heaven...our future rest.
KingdomRose said:
Looking at Genesis 2:4, it is again as plain as day that "day" does not mean a literal 24 hours. It says that the heavens and earth were created, "in the day that God made them. You would say that He created them ALL in a 24-hour span of time? Must be, if you take "day" to mean 24 hours!
WOW!..... Now you have it!!! The word 'day' in English, and 'YOM' in Hebrew has a similar variety of meaning. It is always understood by the context! Genesis 1 days 24 hour days...determined by context. Yes, 'YOM' can be longer than, or shorter than 24 hour...understood by CONTEXT.
KingdomRose said:
In addition, there is no indication (other than somebody's imagination) that the Hebrews used hours in dividing up the day prior to the Babylonian exile.
It is us who refers to it as 24 hours. God defined a day in Genesis 1: 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
KingdomRose said:
The "day" that God made the earth and the heavens is not a 24-hour period either, seeing as the heavens themselves have been around for billions of years. The Bible does not conflict with Science, as you have taken upon yourself to make it seem.
We agree that there is no conflict between science and God's Word. But we do disagree about the secular opinions and billions of years you add to scripture.*
Mark 10:6 "However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female".
The Greek word for beginning is 'arche' ...a word denoting an absolute. It was not a subsequent beginning...It was not the beginning of humanity, but the beginning of creation. The Greek wording for 'since the creation of the world' in that verse is "apo ktiseos kosmou". The Greek word 'apo' as a preposition means 'The beginning point'. Greek 'kosmou' (kosmos) refers to the universe.

Author Wayne Jackson explains..."Unquestionably this language puts humankind at the very dawn of creation. To reject this clear truth one must contend that:
(a) Christ knew the universe was in existence billions of years prior to man, but accommodated himself to the ignorance of his generation deliberately misrepresenting the situation; or,
(b) The Lord living in pre-scientific times was uninformed about the matter (despite the fact that he was there as Creator). Either one of these allegations is a reflection upon the Son of God and his blasphemous"

ALSO...
Millions of years of suffering, death and extinctions contradict God's Word.
The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with Genesis 1:31 where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world. And, we KNOW when sin entered the world.
ALSO...
If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.
 
Top