Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,235

    Real Christians Cannot Believe in Evolution

    "Here's the REAL reason Christians must fight science at any cost. It's a nice compilation of biblical material elucidating Christian interpretation and inconsistencies in their own interpretation."




    Additional Thoughts on Christianity and Evolution



    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Hey Rose,


    Very thought provoking, but I got confused on which side that he was making his stand on!
    Beck

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Beck View Post
    Hey Rose,


    Very thought provoking, but I got confused on which side that he was making his stand on!
    By the way there are also many NON-Christians who do not believe in Evolution, not just Christians only. The main reasons why I do not believe in Evolution are because;
    1. Evolution cannot explain and demonstrate the fundamental question of how life came from non-living things
    2. No animal and plants have ever seen to evolve naturally from one species to another.....NONE!
    3. Animals and plants that were living millions or hundreds of million of years ago are still living today without undergoing any sign of evolution.
    4. Evolution can't explain which came first, the hen or the egg? The flower or the bee?

    Evolution is Bullshit! Obviously, non-believers are fighting against Creation because they do not believe in God or that there is a Creation God. There are in fact widespread support for creationism in the world:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

    Excerpt:
    While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]
    The Discovery Institute, a pro–intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
    Creationists have had some successes in the political realm in the US and other countries.[7][8][9][10][11][12] There is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world,[13] South Africa, India,[14] South Korea and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel,[15] Australia,[16] New Zealand,[17] and Canada.[18] The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.



    Thanks God for His creaton.
    Last edited by CWH; 06-10-2012 at 10:42 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,113
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    By the way there are also many NON-Christians who do not believe in Evolution, not just Christians only. The main reasons why I do not believe in Evolution are because;
    1. Evolution cannot explain and demonstrate the fundamental question of how life came from non-living things
    2. No animal and plants have ever seen to evolve naturally from one species to another.....NONE!
    3. Animals and plants that were living millions or hundreds of million of years ago are still living today without undergoing any sign of evolution.
    4. Evolution can't explain which came first, the hen or the egg? The flower or the bee?

    Evolution is Bullshit!

    Thanks God for His creaton.
    Cheow,

    Your answers indicate a complete ignorance of the science of evolution.

    1) The question of the origin of DNA has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution per se. It wouldn't matter if a God created the first living cell or if it arose naturally from chemical evolution. The facts supporting the Theory of Evolution would remain valid.

    2) The is a mountain of evidence supporting the common descent of all organisms, so your statement is not only false, and outrageously so.

    3) The Theory of Evolution does not predict that a species must constantly evolve. There is no selective pressure to cause a species to change if it is already well adapted. On the contrary, in that case natural selection causes the species to remain the same.

    4) Evolution most certainly can explain which came first. The flowers existed before bees. When bees appeared, they co-evolved with the flowers which established their symbiotic relation.

    Your statement that "evolution is bullshit" is like an ignorant hill-billy that can't add 1 + 2 saying that "Calculus is bullshit."

    I think it would be great if you wanted to try to address the real reasons that real scientist assert that evolution is a solid theory supported by solid evidence. As it is, your comments only display the woeful ignorance caused by your dogmatic religion.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,227
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Cheow,

    Your answers indicate a complete ignorance of the science of evolution.

    1) The question of the origin of DNA has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution per se. It wouldn't matter if a God created the first living cell or if it arose naturally from chemical evolution. The facts supporting the Theory of Evolution would remain valid.
    There are millions and millions of people who do not believe in evolution. Why didn't they despite all the education and the so call "evidence"? I guess you miss the internet link I presented. How did life evolved from non-living things?

    2) The is a mountain of evidence supporting the common descent of all organisms, so your statement is not only false, and outrageously so.
    The mountain of evidence does not support evolution but ADAPTATION. There Not one, I repeat NOT ONE evidence that shows a species of animal and plant evolved to become another species.

    3) The Theory of Evolution does not predict that a species must constantly evolve. There is no selective pressure to cause a species to change if it is already well adapted. On the contrary, in that case natural selection causes the species to remain the same.
    There is no evidence that natural selection, None, I repeat NONE that shows natural selection turned one species to become a new species.

    4) Evolution most certainly can explain which came first. The flowers existed before bees. When bees appeared, they co-evolved with the flowers which established their symbiotic relation.
    What a joke, if the flowers appeared first, they would have died out because there was no bee to pollinate them. Neither can the bee came first or they would not be able to produce nectar to feed their youngs. The only explanation is that they co-existed together. Symbiotic relationship requires communication and agreement that they must co-exist together to survive or they will be become extinct. This is require intelligent design.

    Your statement that "evolution is bullshit" is like an ignorant hill-billy that can't add 1 + 2 saying that "Calculus is bullshit."

    I think it would be great if you wanted to try to address the real reasons that real scientist assert that evolution is a solid theory supported by solid evidence. As it is, your comments only display the woeful ignorance caused by your dogmatic religion.
    Here is the internet link you missed out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

    Excerpt:
    While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]
    The Discovery Institute, a pro–intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
    Creationists have had some successes in the political realm in the US and other countries.[7][8][9][10][11][12] There is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world,[13] South Africa, India,[14] South Korea and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel,[15] Australia,[16] New Zealand,[17] and Canada.[18] The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.


    Thank God for His wonderful creation.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    By the way there are also many NON-Christians who do not believe in Evolution, not just Christians only. The main reasons why I do not believe in Evolution are because;
    Hi CWH,
    Well I think the premise of this youtuber is that if any christain [which some do] say that Adam and Eve are metaphors or parables they then must concede that Abraham, Moses and even Jesus is likewise a metaphor or at least the first century believed them to be real persons given their genealogy. In other words you can't have an genealogy founded on a metaphorical person.

    Then this youtuber goes on to say that those christains that claim Adam and Eve to be metaphors come to the side of Evolution to explain away how that man was maded.

    Thus we can't take what the Bible has said about the creation account and that leads to even more....
    Beck

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,113
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    There are millions and millions of people who do not believe in evolution. Why didn't they despite all the education and the so call "evidence"? I guess you miss the internet link I presented. How did life evolved from non-living things?
    Truth is not determined by popular vote.

    The vast majority of those "millions of people" are probably just as ignorant of the science as you are Cheow. That's the problem. You ignore all the scientific evidence and just say meaningless things like "evolution is bullshit." This makes you look absurd. Why don't you actually engage the evidence? Have you ever read a single book explaining the evidence supporting evolution? If not, then how can you think you are qualified to pronounce judgments about things you know nothing of?

    I just don't get it. It seems like you don't care about truth at all. Why are you willing to say things you don't know? Suppose God used evolution to create all the plants and animals. You can't say it is impossible - you don't have absolute knowledge. If God did use evolution, then you would be guilty of calling God an idiot and his methods bullshit! Don't you care about truth at all? Why do you say things you don't know?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    The mountain of evidence does not support evolution but ADAPTATION. There Not one, I repeat NOT ONE evidence that shows a species of animal and plant evolved to become another species.
    Adaptation is a central fact of evoluition!

    Here's what the wiki says:
    An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. An adaptation refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the fitness and survival of individuals. Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive plasticity as the phenotype of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The developmental norm of reaction for any given trait is essential to the correction of adaptation as it affords a kind of biological insurance or resilience to varying environments.
    Why are you so willing to say things you don't know? I just don't get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    There is no evidence that natural selection, None, I repeat NONE that shows natural selection turned one species to become a new species.
    That's ridiculous. You don't even know the meaning of those words.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    What a joke, if the flowers appeared first, they would have died out because there was no bee to pollinate them. Neither can the bee came first or they would not be able to produce nectar to feed their youngs. The only explanation is that they co-existed together. Symbiotic relationship requires communication and agreement that they must co-exist together to survive or they will be become extinct. This is require intelligent design.
    Again, you display your ignorance. The first plants didn't need to pollinate. That evolved MUCH later.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Here is the internet link you missed out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

    Excerpt:
    While an overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological origin,[1][2] creationists have asserted that there is a significant scientific controversy and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[3][4][5]
    The Discovery Institute, a pro–intelligent design lobby group located in the United States, also claims that because there is a significant lack of public support for evolution, that public schools should, as their campaign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
    Creationists have had some successes in the political realm in the US and other countries.[7][8][9][10][11][12] There is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world,[13] South Africa, India,[14] South Korea and Brazil, with smaller followings in Israel,[15] Australia,[16] New Zealand,[17] and Canada.[18] The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement.
    The creationists are wrong and have been thoroughly debunked, so what is your point?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,454
    Hello to all
    Once again we are in the realm of the unknown as to the processes whereby life came into existence. I can understand scientific experiment and science, yet I am not convinced science has all the answers and exactly how much more can be found out is a unknown. Even some scientists think that man has reached the limit of what can be found out.

    This week in the news it was reported that scientists are now saying the dinosaurs were not as large as they were thought to have been. This is yet another case of scientists new thinking. In so doing they trash the previously held view. It goes to show how changeable the thinking of science can be and why I would not put all my trust in what scientists, especially Evolutionists say.

    It is logical that God has used the same building blocks to create the universe. Atoms (as we understand them) are the basis of all matter, hence the periodic table of the elements. The atoms make up the molecules. Smaller molecules make up the building blocks of life. It is not surprising that the DNA of animals should resemble that of humans or that there are similarities of design between the different kinds of animals and plants. It is Evolutionists that see these similarities and think there is some connection from one to another. The only connection is the Designer. It is like the construction of a building or an electronic circuit. Standard parts/components are used to make modules which go to form the finished building or circuit board and we know from the buildings we see around us the similarities and differences, yet the materials and construction techniques can be the same.

    There is the question of what was before the Big Bang before everything came into existence. If the Big Bang corresponds to "In the beginning" when God created all matter, what existed before that? Was the time before matter came into existence God's design time? Without a time reference God had an infinite time to think about designing atoms and molecules and the things He would make, before He actually made them.

    It amazes me that scientists say that the heavier molecules like carbon are difficult to form naturally from hydrogen and helium atoms and yet life on this planet is carbon-based. How did so much carbon come to be on this planet? Besides that, the earth has an iron core. Without the iron core this planet would not have the density it has in order that the gravitational force was just suitable to sustain an atmosphere that would support life. And how is it that the atmosphere is finely balances with the correct ratio of the different gases such as Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen which are essential for life. Why is it that the moon is the size it is at exactly the right distance so as to match the exact size of the sun as seen in an eclipse of the sun from the earth? This looks to be more that shear coincidence. Evolution has the improbability of something like 10infinity The odds of Creation are more like 10(infinity - 1) Both probabilities represent numbers so large, our brains do not have the capacity to deal with such numbers, but the improbability of Creation is less than that of Evolution and is therefore more probable.

    Given man can separate out the basic elements that life needs such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. what have scientists made in the form of life? Man has no better chance of creating life than by closing up all the elements together in a sealed box and waiting an infinite period of time for life to materialize of its own accord. Even then not having to make the elements in the first place gives man a helping hand.

    As far as I can see, Evolutionists want to win their argument so as not to believe in the ONE God who made everything. If Evolutionists won their argument, they would change the belief of those who believe in God, and would rob them of any hope in the future. God has left clues in the things that He has made which tell us that these things could not have come into existence without a Creator. Without the Bible (ancient scriptures) we would have no revelation of God to mankind and we would not know that God has the capability to give us eternal life. We have the clues in the things that have been made and we have the revelation from God that has been written and preserved for our learning.

    We have a massive problem in getting to the truth seeing as there are as many interpretations as there are people. Yet there is no reason, if we can suppress our ego and pride that we could all know the Truth of God's word and be in agreement and believe the same thing. There can only be one intended message from the author for the reader to understood. That is the task that we all have; to understand what God wants us to know. The size of the problem is such that we do not have enough time to discuss every chapter and verse and find agreement amongst us. Omitting the accepted errors through translation and transcription, agreeing the meaning of every chapter and verse in the Bible is a mammoth task, yet compared to 10infinity it is more likely to be achieved than waiting for Evolution to take place in the closed box containing all the elements to make life.

    Analyzing every chapter and verse and getting everyone's interpretation would be akin to what is written in John 21:25; "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written".
    I can envisage the server would not be big enough to handle the volume of correspondence. Yet to understand the Bible totally, the truth behind every verse and chapter must be understood as the author intend the readers to understand. Without working towards agreement of what the Bible says, we shall continue to argue from our separate corners.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 06-10-2012 at 06:09 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,113
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello to all
    Once again we are in the realm of the unknown as to the processes whereby life came into existence. I can understand scientific experiment and science, yet I am not convinced science has all the answers and exactly how much more can be found out is a unknown. Even some scientists think that man has reached the limit of what can be found out.
    Hey there David,

    Nobody in their right mind says that "science has all the answers." Anyone who knows anything about science knows that we have only just begun to learn how the universe really works. But this doesn't mean we should look to the Bible for scientific answers, does it? The Bible does not give us any scientific answers at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This week in the news it was reported that scientists are now saying the dinosaurs were not as large as they were thought to have been. This is yet another case of scientists new thinking. In so doing they trash the previously held view. It goes to show how changeable the thinking of science can be and why I would not put all my trust in what scientists, especially Evolutionists say.
    That is a caricature of science. The fact that science changes when new evidence is discovered gives us reason to trust science! It should be lauded because it is willing to admit when new evidence corrects previous errors. This is the opposite of dogmatic religions which never change regardless of our wrong they may be.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is logical that God has used the same building blocks to create the universe. Atoms (as we understand them) are the basis of all matter, hence the periodic table of the elements. The atoms make up the molecules. Smaller molecules make up the building blocks of life. It is not surprising that the DNA of animals should resemble that of humans or that there are similarities of design between the different kinds of animals and plants. It is Evolutionists that see these similarities and think there is some connection from one to another. The only connection is the Designer. It is like the construction of a building or an electronic circuit. Standard parts/components are used to make modules which go to form the finished building or circuit board and we know from the buildings we see around us the similarities and differences, yet the materials and construction techniques can be the same.
    You don't understand the DNA evidence for evolution. It is the same kind of DNA evidence courts admit to settle paternity cases. It shows who descended from whom. It has nothing to do with merely sharing common genes as if a designer were using the same parts in different organisms.

    Here's an analogy that might help. Imagine that DNA replication were like copying a document on a copy machine. Now suppose a fingerprint was left on the glass plate. Everything copied thereafter would have a fingerprint copied too. Now imagine a different smudge got on the plate. Everything copied later would have that smudge too. Now look at the genome of humans, apes, and chimps. The apes and chimps have the fingerprint, but the chimps and humans have both the fingerprint and the smudge. How did the ape, chimp, and human get the fingerprint? They were descended from a common ancestor with that random mutation in its genome and so they inherited it. Why did the chimp and the human get the smudge, but not the ape? Because they descended from a common ancestor that came after the common ancestor of the chimps and humans split from the apes.

    You really, really, really should read an introductory text on the evidence for evolution if you want to have an informed opinion. I recommend "The Making of the Fittest" by Sean Carrol. It lays out the DNA evidence with great clarity.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    There is the question of what was before the Big Bang before everything came into existence. If the Big Bang corresponds to "In the beginning" when God created all matter, what existed before that? Was the time before matter came into existence God's design time? Without a time reference God had an infinite time to think about designing atoms and molecules and the things He would make, before He actually made them.
    The Big Bang is supported by a lot of scientific evidence, just like evolution. If you choose to arbitrarily reject evolution without refuting any of the evidence supporting it, why do you accept the rest of science?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It amazes me that scientists say that the heavier molecules like carbon are difficult to form naturally from hydrogen and helium atoms and yet life on this planet is carbon-based. How did so much carbon come to be on this planet? Besides that, the earth has an iron core. Without the iron core this planet would not have the density it has in order that the gravitational force was just suitable to sustain an atmosphere that would support life. And how is it that the atmosphere is finely balances with the correct ratio of the different gases such as Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen which are essential for life. Why is it that the moon is the size it is at exactly the right distance so as to match the exact size of the sun as seen in an eclipse of the sun from the earth? This looks to be more that shear coincidence. Evolution has the improbability of something like 10infinity The odds of Creation are more like 10(infinity - 1) Both probabilities represent numbers so large, our brains do not have the capacity to deal with such numbers, but the improbability of Creation is less than that of Evolution and is therefore more probable.
    Carbon and all the heavier elements were cooked in suns that then exploded. There is no scientific mystery about this as far as I know.

    As for your other questions - those are part of the "Fine Tuning" argument. My brother in law (a professor of the Philosophy of Science at Messiah college) has been working on a book on that topic for about a decade. He has amassed a huge amount of evidence. But there is a problem - even if the universe is fine tuned, it tells us nothing about why, and certainly does not distinguish between Allah, Yahweh, the Hindu Brahman, or if the universe is just a grand dream that we all share.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Given man can separate out the basic elements that life needs such as oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. what have scientists made in the form of life? Man has no better chance of creating life than by closing up all the elements together in a sealed box and waiting an infinite period of time for life to materialize of its own accord. Even then not having to make the elements in the first place gives man a helping hand.
    Mere assertion. You haven't given any evidence supporting your assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    As far as I can see, Evolutionists want to win their argument so as not to believe in the ONE God who made everything. If Evolutionists won their argument, they would change the belief of those who believe in God, and would rob them of any hope in the future. God has left clues in the things that He has made which tell us that these things could not have come into existence without a Creator. Without the Bible (ancient scriptures) we would have no revelation of God to mankind and we would not know that God has the capability to give us eternal life. We have the clues in the things that have been made and we have the revelation from God that has been written and preserved for our learning.
    This is the fundamental error of religious fundamentalists. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. He believes in the Christian God. He also was the director of the Human Genome Project and is convinced by the evidence of evolution. Your assertion that people accept scientific evidence "so as not to believe in the ONE God who made everything" is utterly absurd. People are convinced about evolution because of the evidence. A much more relevant question is why anyone believes the Bible when it is contradicted by so much evidence coming from so many different fields of science and philosophy.

    The only thing a believer would lose by accepting the evidence is their delusions. And that goes for everyone, including myself. That's why I am so free. I have nothing to lose but my errors if you prove me wrong. But if I prove you or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Mormon wrong, then your whole religious world comes crashing down.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We have a massive problem in getting to the truth seeing as there are as many interpretations as there are people. Yet there is no reason, if we can suppress our ego and pride that we could all know the Truth of God's word and be in agreement and believe the same thing. There can only be one intended message from the author for the reader to understood. That is the task that we all have; to understand what God wants us to know. The size of the problem is such that we do not have enough time to discuss every chapter and verse and find agreement amongst us. Omitting the accepted errors through translation and transcription, agreeing the meaning of every chapter and verse in the Bible is a mammoth task, yet compared to 10infinity it is more likely to be achieved than waiting for Evolution to take place in the closed box containing all the elements to make life.
    Actually, it's not so hard at all. The only reason for the massive disagreements is because DOGMATIC BELIEVERS insist on their false presuppositions, such as the idea that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." If you begin with a false presupposition, no amount of study or discourse would ever bring you to the truth. We don't have this problem in science. In general, there is near total agreement amongst all working scientists about the established facts. The things that are still unknown are acknowledged as such. That's why there are not 10,000 different "scientific denominations."

    The ideal form of discourse is quite obvious. We pick a topic, and describe out two positions. We note the difference, and NARROW DOWN the conversation until we agree upon the actual point where we disagree. We may still disagree, but at least we will know what we disagree about. Then we can evaluate the evidence for the two positions. This is the fast track to truth. If we are both sane, we will agree about almost everything that can be objectively established by evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Analyzing every chapter and verse and getting everyone's interpretation would be akin to what is written in John 21:25; "I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written".
    I can envisage the server would not be big enough to handle the volume of correspondence. Yet to understand the Bible totally, the truth behind every verse and chapter must be understood as the author intend the readers to understand. Without working towards agreement of what the Bible says, we shall continue to argue from our separate corners.

    All the best,

    David
    Yes, it would be voluminous. But a lot of the volume is generated by people trying to resolve so-called "apparent" contradictions. If you begin by assuming that there are no contradictions, then how could you ever recognize one if you saw it? If your presupposition is not true, you would never be able to know and so you'd be lost in delusion with no way out. Have you ever considered what this means?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Rose wrote,

    Real Christians Cannot Believe in Evolution
    "Here's the REAL reason Christians must fight science at any cost.

    The Scientific Case Against Evolution

    by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

    Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macro evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

    Evolution Is Not Happening Now

    First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called micro evolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

    ("One small example of evidence for Creation over Evolution is exposed in something I call the Micro/Macro Deception. One of the dirty little secrets most people don't know is that there are, in fact, 2 types of Evolution – Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution happens all the time and is perfectly Biblical. Macro-evolution is what Darwin claimed, and it never happens. Here comes the deception part. Evolutionists fill our textbooks, news reports and peer review publications with legitimate examples of observed Micro-evolution and no examples of observed Darwinian.....or Macro-evolution. (Because there aren't any) The evolutionists then lump it all together and call it “proof of evolution”. By Bob Dutko).


    The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macro evolution (as distinct from micro evolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

    The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

    Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

    The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

    Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

    Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

    The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

    Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?
    The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

    Evolution Could Never Happen at All

    The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
    This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

    Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

    Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

    This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

    The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

    Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

    Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

    In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

    The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

    Read entire article here: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •