I know about alle's, and genetic things because I had biology class in 10th grade im in 11th grade this year. I am sorry but I do not accept any kind of evolution, because GOD created every living creature "after his own kind" not evolution from another creature. I do not care what man says about the genetics of animals or humans, GOD says each animal and creature that is created reproduces "after its own kind" not evolution over millions of years. millions of years is wrong anyway. Here is one link,
and tomorrow, i will post some other links for you to read that shows the earth is young and not old. by accepting any kind of evolution to me is like putting your faith in what a "scientist" says because his work is based on assumptions, like the age of rocks, the scientist depends and puts his "faith" in the object that fallible man made in order to produce the correct answer. And accepting what he says, is like putting your faith into what he is saying is true. I only believe the Word of GOD and the word of GOD alone. =] And were not arguing, It's all cool =]
I firmly believe that God says that the universe is billions of years old, and that life has changed over time. And no, you didn't miss the scripture reference where God says this; the clues are written into the very universe that God has created. Scientists are simply reading those clues. So God is either dishonest in one or both of his "books" (the book of scripture or the book of nature), or, the scriptures are simply writings of men and not at all of God... or else God has communicated in Genesis through poetry and symbolism. Personally, the last position makes most sense to me theologically.
In all points about which they care nothing, yes, sort of... except of course when it breaks down, as in the case of how many chromosomes a human cell contains. The entire scientific community had accepted the fact that there were 48 of them until the 1960's. Then it was discovered that there were 46, not 48!
And we used to think that bumps on the cranium would tell you about all sorts of things about a person too, but the scientific knowledge grows and old ideas that don't fit the data are tossed out for newer, more accurate data and models. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you think that science should render an explanation on every point right now and not get anything wrong?
But whenever the fact in question challenges their religious belief, all integrity disappears. I say religious belief because evolution has all the earmarks of a religious belief, even though it is dressed up as science.
Where is the supernatural element in evolution? Where is the holy scripture, where is the mythology, what binds all believers to that supernatural element?
As in a religion, evolutionists, get angry when their belief is challenged. I know that you will probably have trouble admitting this, but I have observed it countless times.
I'm sure if there was a force that challenged Relativity a lot of scientists would get angry at that as well.
As in a religion, evolutionists ignore all evidence that calls their belief into question. You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are a great many facts that do not fit the template of evolutionary thought. But science as a whole simply ignores these facts. A favorite of mine is the homonoid footprints that occur in carboniferous strata over a wide area of eastern United States. I have read articles about them in scientific journals. But one such stands out in my memory, from the journal of Geology in the 1950's or early 1960's. it said (approximately, this is from memory- I have lost my notes n this one.) "If man, or man's early ape ancestor, or that early ape ancestor's early mamalian ancestor lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, the whole science of geology is so wrong all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attracrive notion that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet."
I'm not a geologist so I can't comment on the actual evidence. But I'm sure that if studies came out that said that the speed of light is not a constant I'm sure every scientist would shun away from that conclusion until all other options have been eliminated. Likewise, when there is a finding that threatens the dismantlement of entire fields people will shun away from such conclusions until there is no other option to explain the data.
As in a religion, evolutionists are willing to misrepresent facts in order to persuade others that their belief is correct. Evolutionists continue to argue the theory of recapitulation, even though embryologists as a whole have realized that it is incorrect. In my university days, it was taught to beginning biology students, and its error was taught to senior level embryology students.... by the same professor!!!
If this is all true then why did you stay and get a degree in a corrupt field?
And as in a religion, evolutionists attempt to suppress all argument against their beliefs. I have read calls for boycotts against certain publishers in scientific journals, based entirely on the fact that they dared to publish a book challenging evolution as a fact. Many evolutionists have attempted to get colleagues fired from their jobs, just for daring to openly state that they do not believe in evolution.
Scientists don't try to suppress real evidence presented, only the baseless accusations made by creationists that either lie or don't know what they're talking about.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
Where is the supernatural element in evolution? Where is the holy scripture, where is the mythology, what binds all believers to that supernatural element?
In actuality, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that to believe in special creation. The supernatural element in evolution is random chance. the holy scripture is The origin of Species. And the mythology is the beneficial mutation.
I'm not a geologist so I can't comment on the actual evidence. But I'm sure that if studies came out that said that the speed of light is not a constant I'm sure every scientist would shun away from that conclusion until all other options have been eliminated.
Actually, such studies have recently been published, and there was no outcry. Scientists took a wait and see attitude.
[quote]If this is all true then why did you stay and get a degree in a corrupt field? [quote]
because I needed the degree to pursue my chosen field of work.
Scientists don't try to suppress real evidence presented, only the baseless accusations made by creationists that either lie or don't know what they're talking about.
Real scientists inded do not. But unfortunately, evolutionists do this regularly. I have seen many cases of such suppression.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
In actuality, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that to believe in special creation. The supernatural element in evolution is random chance. the holy scripture is The origin of Species. And the mythology is the beneficial mutation.
By random chance you mean random mutations? As to the holy scripture we know Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and no one in their right mind would think that The Origin of Species is separate from human intervention. To the mythology, mythology are stories that teach morals and life lessons, how to behave, what is right was is wrong, ect. Even if beneficial mutations were completely fictitious they would not be considered mythology. How would you use the beneficial mutation lactose tolerance as mythology?
P.S. I know this is the creation only section, and technically I'm not really supposed to be here or go against creationism. And if you feel that this is not the place to settle our differences, I would be okay with moving our discussions to a more appropriate section.
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
May Christ be your shalom.
Last edited by Darkness27; 2nd August 2009 at 02:11 AM.
That is essentially what evolution explains, the diversity of life.
What do you mean by the first sentence? And the speed of light is a constant: 186,000 miles per second. Or 300,000 k/s
The big bang has nothing to do with evolution abiogenesis, not evolution. That is not an assumption that is the conclusion of evolution, plus we knew that species have lived, gone extinct and changed before Darwin and Mendel, the two found a way for life to diversify, Mendel with alleles and Darwin with natural selection. Geology proved the Earth was at least millions, and when they found out that the sun got its energy from nuclear fusion it brought up the potential age up drastically which was later shown to be true and today we are confident the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. They don't assume, they go where the evidence leads, and the evidence does not support a young Earth.
What do you mean by intelligibility? While scientists do need to make basic assumptions about the world, the YEC model makes so many more assumptions that are ultimately false.
You don't need faith, the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity.
That verse is famous, or at least I've seen it a lot. While I would agree that since anything exists it points to God, it is not a foundation to disprove any scientific theory. Christianity survived going from geocentric to heliocentric, I'm sure Christianity will survive switching to evolution, the catholic church has already made the switch, and the majority of protestants have already accepted evolution, Christianity will endure.
Don't worry about it
First part of my sentence I mean that, evolutionists think that the earth must be old in order for the light to reach the earth. Well there are ways for light to travel faster than it is suggested to by different methods in science.
If the Big Bang did not relate to evolution then how can evolution be true? If the "Big Bang" is not evolution then How did the earth get here for the evolution process to start? Therefore the BB is apart of evolution. No Big bang no evolution. If Abiogenesis is not evolution then tell me exactly what was the first organism we evolved from? No abiogenesis no evolution. Yes Abiogenesis pertains evolution. If there was no Big Bang, there is no Abiogenesis, therefore no evolution. Like I also said Darkness,Everyone in this world has the same Universe, Same Animals, Same Fossils, Same Evidence, Same everything. How we interpret these things is what counts. You think just because supposedly smart people Darwin and Mendel were telling the exact truth just because they were scientists then you are very wrong. You are choosing mankind's belief and assumptions over God's authority in the Bible? This is very illogical interpreted by the faulty reasoning pernicious ways of evolutionists who only assume what they "believe" as to what happened.
I once watched a video not to long ago, and it showed a scientist walking up to this dead tree out somewhere in the desert that was in the layers of rocks, and what he said did not surprise me. At first it was interesting, until he said the word "ASSUME" He said, "we assume" that this tree was expanded like this. This is his belief about this tree, the evidence that was provided did not say, "Hey, I am billions of years old, and I had a canopy that was shaped like this." Man kind gets the age of these things by ASSUMPTIONS. Also Do you really think that these "dating methods" are actually reliable? You do not know this, You have only "heard" of the dating methods.
Creationists do not make assumptions. We know that that the earth is young. If the earth was billions of years the oceans would be nothing but salt and you could walk across it by foot. If we do make assumptions, we have a basis for such claims that we make and that is on the Bible. What justification does evolution have to prove and give a logical rational explanation for there claims on a foundation that has no basis? therefore we can conclude that Evolution is illogical and inconsistent within there worldview based upon the assumptions of scientists who claim they know what happened in the past by basing it on the evidence in the present and you cannot do this in an evolutionary worldview because this is called, Uniformity of nature, The key to future is like the past and the past is like the future. That is what the Uniformity of nature is and it is a precondition of intelligibility in which only the Biblical Creation worldview can account for this ability because in an evolutionary worldview for this to make sense the evolutionists has to be inconsistent because this goes contrary to there worldview and thus can be counted as arbitrary because they do not have a logical explanation as to why they use such a principle for the claims that they make on a foundation with no basis which gives no justification. The key to past Biblically is the Revelation of JESUS. Whenever Creationists make assumptions they base it on the infallible word of God. What do evolutionists base their assumptions on? Their own opinionated belief is what, and what If one evolutionist believes differently? Whenever you use the Bible to interpret the evidence for us. It lines up perfectly with the word of God. Evidence does not line up with evolution. Evolution is inconsistent within themselves as I have showed above. They use Biblical principles that they cannot account for which are the preconditions of intelligibility. Scientists assume these things in order to do science but base is upon their opinionated beliefs.
haha you just contradicted yourself. You said the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity. And it does not take faith? lol Oh But it does, it does very. Okay, Tell me on basis do these evolutionists base their "rigorous" standards? I can tell you, there own opinionated standards that they have no basis for, This results in circular reasoning fallacy. Because to show where "standards" come from they would contradict their own philosophy.
haha, I can tell you this, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS! OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT! BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE I SHALL SERVE THE LORD GOD IN HEAVEN ALMIGHTY WHO CREATED ALL THINGS! ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE, I SHALL LIVE FOR JESUS AND HIS MAJESTY! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THIS GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE NOT WITH IT! READ YOUR BIBLE! YOU SHALL KNOW! 2 PETER 3:3-9 -- ROMANS 1:18-32 -- ROMANS 3:9-20 -- JUDE (WHOLE THING) -- 2 PETER 2:9, 12-13 ALL OF THESE VERSES ARE THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES RIGHT NOW!
__________________ " In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God)
Last edited by WingsOfEagles07; 2nd August 2009 at 02:25 PM.
The essence of evolution is that all this developed through mutations that occurred by random chance.
As to the holy scripture we know Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and no one in their right mind would think that The Origin of Species is separate from human intervention. To the mythology, mythology are stories that teach morals and life lessons, how to behave, what is right was is wrong, ect.
You are confusing fables, as in Aesop's Fables, with mythology. There is absolutely zero moral teaching in most of Greek mythology, and there is no mythology in the Bible.
[quote]Even if beneficial mutations were completely fictitious they would not be considered mythology. How would you use the beneficial mutation lactose tolerance as mythology?[quote]
lactose tolerance is not a beneficial mutation. lactose intolerance is a detrimental mutation.
P.S. I know this is the creation only section, and technically I'm not really supposed to be here or go against creationism. And if you feel that this is not the place to settle our differences, I would be okay with moving our discussions to a more appropriate section.
Being a pure scientist by education, and an applied scientist by profession, I have studied this question in great detail, and I am satisfied that I can prove that evolution is not even a good explanation for the actual data that has been observed, much less a proven fact. But that would take a great deal of my time and I am not interested in wasting a lot of time on numerous individuals who are more interested in proving that the Bible is not correct than in coming to an understanding of the truth.
If you want to discuss this (not debate it) here, I will be glad to accommodate you.
I will simply begin by asserting that every one of the widely circulated "proofs" of evolution is rejected as factually inaccurate by widely recognized experts in the specific fields to which each of these individual "proofs" apply.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Last edited by Biblewriter; 2nd August 2009 at 05:20 PM.
The essence of evolution is that all this developed through mutations that occurred by random chance.
You forgot natural selection.
You are confusing fables, as in Aesop's Fables, with mythology. There is absolutely zero moral teaching in most of Greek mythology, and there is no mythology in the Bible.
From wiki: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story.[11][12][13]
Using the definition of mythology by folkloristics, Genesis is mythology, and the definition I got from my religion professor was religious stories that teach people things, among them morals and life lessons, which Genesis does indeed fit into. In addition he also added that every single religion has mythology, and no religion is absent of mythology.
lactose tolerance is not a beneficial mutation. lactose intolerance is a detrimental mutation.
Again you are at odds with the entire scientific community as far as I know, I have never heard of this claim. I assume lactose tolerance was in our genetic code whenever you say that God created humans. But why would lactose tolerance be expressed in three different ways, each one with a distinct geographical location? It has all the markers that lactose tolerance co-evolved three separate times in Europe while lactose tolerance is not really seen in Africa, Asia, Australia or the Americas for the most part. Even if it was present in the original DNA, lactose intolerance should not have spread so rapidly in non-European populations.
Being a pure scientist by education, and an applied scientist by profession, I have studied this question in great detail, and I am satisfied that I can prove that evolution is not even a good explanation for the actual data that has been observed, much less a proven fact.
What is your definition of evolution?
But that would take a great deal of my time and I am not interested in wasting a lot of time on numerous individuals who are more interested in proving that the Bible is not correct than in coming to an understanding of the truth.
I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, only your interpretation through civilized discussion. But I understand that educating someone in science does require a lot of time, and in less than a month I will not have the time as school will be starting up again. So not going into lengthy detail on the subject will be mutually agreeable.
If you want to discuss this (not debate it) here, I will be glad to accommodate you.
Not debate, only discuss, although sometimes it will look like a debate as we have opposing views.
I will simply begin by asserting that every one of the widely circulated "proofs" of evolution is rejected as factually inaccurate by widely recognized experts in the specific fields to which each of these individual "proofs" apply.
Can you give an example?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
I did not forget natural selection at all. Mutations do not rise through natural selection. The theory of evolution, at its most basic level, is that the myriads of life forms that we see today all came about through natural selection of changes that occurred through random mutations.
While natural selection is indeed a part of the process, the random mutations are the heart of the theory.
From wiki: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story.[11][12][13]
Using the definition of mythology by folkloristics, Genesis is mythology, and the definition I got from my religion professor was religious stories that teach people things, among them morals and life lessons, which Genesis does indeed fit into. In addition he also added that every single religion has mythology, and no religion is absent of mythology.
It is very convenient to re-define a myth to a form that the word can legitimately be applied to the Bible. But in the commonly accepted meaning of the word, there is not even one myth in the entire Bible.
Again you are at odds with the entire scientific community as far as I know, I have never heard of this claim. I assume lactose tolerance was in our genetic code whenever you say that God created humans. But why would lactose tolerance be expressed in three different ways, each one with a distinct geographical location? It has all the markers that lactose tolerance co-evolved three separate times in Europe while lactose tolerance is not really seen in Africa, Asia, Australia or the Americas for the most part. Even if it was present in the original DNA, lactose intolerance should not have spread so rapidly in non-European populations.
My contention was (and remains) based on the simple and (at least almost) universally understood fact that lactose is a basic requirement of mammalian life. As lactose is critical to life, lactose intolerance had to have been a mutation.
This is not only a requirement of a belief in creation, although it is, it is also required by basic evolutionary theory. If the root stock of mammalian life were lactose intolerant, mammals would never have developed mammary glands, for they would have conferred no reproductive advantage. (Did you forget natural selection? )
What is your definition of evolution?
I gave it above.
I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, only your interpretation through civilized discussion.
I am not even trying to prove the Bible. i am trying to demonstrate that you have bought a bill of goods in simply accepting evolution as proven fact.
But I understand that educating someone in science does require a lot of time, and in less than a month I will not have the time as school will be starting up again. So not going into lengthy detail on the subject will be mutually agreeable.
Not debate, only discuss, although sometimes it will look like a debate as we have opposing views.
Can you give an example?
The first of these is the fossil record, which is still touted as proving evolution. They still pretend that it shows a long chain of gradual changes. But that is not what it shows.
The fossil record clearly shows, written in unchangeable stone, that this planet has undergone a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be just as suddenly replaced by a different stable ecosystem.
Evolutionists at first rejected this obvious fact, but creationists did manage to press it sufficiently hard they they finally realized it was true. So Jay Gould come up with a new theory, which he called "punctuated equiblibrium." This theory was acceptable because it maintained the sacredness of the holy grail of this religion, the theory of evolution itself. It just said that evolution proceeded very fast until it reached an equilibrium, and then essentially stopped until something punctuated that equilibrium.
But the ONLY evidence to back up this new theory, which has now become stylish, is the suddenness of the changes written into the geological record, and their unwillingness to conceede even a possibility that these sudden changes even might be evidence that God had repeatedly created new ecosystems, when great catastrophies destroyed the existing ones.
I am out of time, and will have to continue later. Please check out my eye thread, which I resurrected for this discussion.
__________________ Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
First part of my sentence I mean that, evolutionists think that the earth must be old in order for the light to reach the earth. Well there are ways for light to travel faster than it is suggested to by different methods in science.
There is no way light can travel at different speeds, it is a constant represented by Einsteins equation E=MC^2. While I suppose you could argue that light from distant stars or galaxies were there before the Earth formed, and indeed we do find those light sources, it does say definitively that the universe is at least as old as the farthest light source, which happens to be 13Ga(billion) light years away.
If the Big Bang did not relate to evolution then how can evolution be true? If the "Big Bang" is not evolution then How did the earth get here for the evolution process to start? Therefore the BB is apart of evolution. No Big bang no evolution.
While the questions are valid your conclusions are not. In science theories are designed to explain a specific set of facts. For example the theory of gravity explains why things fall to Earth, and why moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars and so on. The theory of gravity doesn't explain how stars, planets or moons got there, only how they interact with each other due to their masses. Just because gravity doesn't explain the origins of such objects, it doesn't make the theory in less valid. Similarly just because evolution can't explain how the Earth got here, or how the first organisms came to be, it doesn't invalidate the explanations for the diversity of life evolutionary theory was meant to explain.
If Abiogenesis is not evolution then tell me exactly what was the first organism we evolved from? No abiogenesis no evolution. Yes Abiogenesis pertains evolution. If there was no Big Bang, there is no Abiogenesis, therefore no evolution.
Abiogenesis has certain elements of evolution, like natural selection, but no matter how abiogenesis unfolds it doesn't do anything to the theory of evolution. Although the two are somewhat connected, the two fields of study focus on different facts, and in the end the two stand on their own.
Like I also said Darkness,Everyone in this world has the same Universe, Same Animals, Same Fossils, Same Evidence, Same everything. How we interpret these things is what counts. You think just because supposedly smart people Darwin and Mendel were telling the exact truth just because they were scientists then you are very wrong. You are choosing mankind's belief and assumptions over God's authority in the Bible? This is very illogical interpreted by the faulty reasoning pernicious ways of evolutionists who only assume what they "believe" as to what happened.
Darwin and Mendel were brilliant people, but they did not discover the whole truth, and many of Darwin's ideas are just plain wrong! It has been over a hundred years since those two, and science has gone a long way since then. I do not choose man over God, I'm just not a fundamentalist and don't adhere to a literalist, inherent, or infallible interpretation to the Bible. My position isn't recent in theological history, St. Augustine was very outspoken against a literal interpretation of the Bible, and this is hundreds of years before Darwin. In actuality the fundamentalist movement, from where modern creationism originates from, was originally invented to combat Darwin's theory and theologically has only been around for about a hundred years.
I once watched a video not to long ago, and it showed a scientist walking up to this dead tree out somewhere in the desert that was in the layers of rocks, and what he said did not surprise me. At first it was interesting, until he said the word "ASSUME" He said, "we assume" that this tree was expanded like this. This is his belief about this tree, the evidence that was provided did not say, "Hey, I am billions of years old, and I had a canopy that was shaped like this." Man kind gets the age of these things by ASSUMPTIONS. Also Do you really think that these "dating methods" are actually reliable? You do not know this, You have only "heard" of the dating methods.
I have not studied dating methods in any depth, but I have a general idea of how most of them work. I know you don't learn hardly anything about them in high school.
Creationists do not make assumptions. We know that that the earth is young. If the earth was billions of years the oceans would be nothing but salt and you could walk across it by foot. If we do make assumptions, we have a basis for such claims that we make and that is on the Bible.
You assume that the Bible is literally true on every point and can be used in a myriad of fields. Because YEC's cannot question the Bible under any circumstances, they cannot do true science.
What justification does evolution have to prove and give a logical rational explanation for there claims on a foundation that has no basis? therefore we can conclude that Evolution is illogical and inconsistent within there worldview based upon the assumptions of scientists who claim they know what happened in the past by basing it on the evidence in the present...
Let us start off with what foundation is evolution built upon in your opinion? And what does evolution fail to explain that creationism, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, can?
haha you just contradicted yourself. You said the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity. And it does not take faith? lol
lol indeed. It is not a contradiction because I never suggested anything other than what I said. Your opinion may be that I am wrong, but I in no way contradicted myself in that sentence. One could be wrong on a thousand points, but it doesn't mean that they contradicted themselves, only that they are wrong on a thousand points.
Oh But it does, it does very. Okay, Tell me on basis do these evolutionists base their "rigorous" standards? I can tell you, there own opinionated standards that they have no basis for, This results in circular reasoning fallacy. Because to show where "standards" come from they would contradict their own philosophy.
Science does have very rigorous standards, I'm sure even Biblewriter would agree with me there.
haha, I can tell you this, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS! OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT! BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE I SHALL SERVE THE LORD GOD IN HEAVEN ALMIGHTY WHO CREATED ALL THINGS! ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE, I SHALL LIVE FOR JESUS AND HIS MAJESTY! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THIS GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE NOT WITH IT! READ YOUR BIBLE! YOU SHALL KNOW!
As before, the heliocentric model destroyed some theological ideals back in its day, but Christianity survived. Religion and science for the most part have been at odds, but it is because people hold on to their dogma too much, they can't differentiate between dogma and God. Over time Christianity accepted the heliocentric model and now only a select few still hold on to the geocentric model, and even older is the flat Earth idea. Christianity will survive the transition to accepting evolution, because Christianity isn't about making claims about science, it is about God, and through His grace Christianity will persevere.
2 PETER 3:3-9
There have been scoffers for ever, not just in the end of days will there be those who mock Christianity. I think this passage was written to second generation Christians where disciples were starting to revert back to Judaism, and he was trying to keep them in the Christian faith.
ROMANS 1:18-32
How is this a prophesy? If anything it is talking about past or present events to when it was written, not future events. I myself see this passage as more timeless than anything, and can be applied to past, present and future.
ROMANS 3:9-20
I don't know how you got a prophesy out of this. In basic terms all it says is that everyone falls short the glory of God, and if you read a little further, only through God's grace can we be saved. It then goes on to make other statements of faith and theological implications.
JUDE (WHOLE THING)
I only saw one prophesy about the end of times, verse 18. And it is a quote from 2 Peter mentioned above.
2 PETER 2:9, 12-13 ALL OF THESE VERSES ARE THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES RIGHT NOW!
I don't see 2 Peter 2 as a prophesy, more of a warning from his own experiences in preaching. He probably saw how false prophets gathered members and logically assumed that there will be false prophets for the next generation. Even if this is a prophecy, there have been false preachers since Christianities existence, why do you say they are just now being fulfilled?
__________________ I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their usage.
)
Linear Mode
