Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[Nacho]

I came here from FSTDT.

That's how I got to these forums. I wanted to make sure I got a decent view of both sides. (I browse through IIDB.) I've found the arguments to all be fairly similar.

 

[Pesto]

Yeah, this stuff has been rehashed so many times, we're down to drinking the bong water.

I mostly come here for the entertainment factor.

 

[Nacho]

Yeah, this stuff has been rehashed so many times, we're down to drinking the bong water.

Please pass it my way on its next trip 'round.

That is one of the main reasons I came here. The discussions in other places basically rehashed the same issue. I wanted to make sure I was not missing something.

I've found myself reciting, "Positive evidence for God?"

 

[spiderswebb11]

What I like about this post is that the author has reversed things almost entirely - perhaps they are actually atheists but just have things a bit back-to-front in their minds? The evidence backing up the theory of evolution may be limited (what with the irritating habit living tissue has of decomposing after a few hundred years) but at least there IS evidence. Where is the evidence backing up the theory of creation? What's that? There isn't any?? Gosh darn it.

 

[EvolutionROCKS]

LMAO!! Do you actually think there is a being that you have never seen that magically created the world in six days? Jesus Christ!

I suppose it provides entertainment, maybe even as much as the harry potter books...

 

[AirPo]

I smell something fishy. Poe's Law?

 

[Contracelsus]

(deleted)

 

[EvolutionROCKS]

ok, i apologise for my earlier post. I have read arguements for creation v evolution and all it seems to boil down to is the Bible v Science.

Personally i am inclined to believe in Science as it offers more evidence that you can see rather than having to put complete faith in a book that has been continually altered throughout the ages.

In the Modern Age when magic is widely disbelieved and the people who do believe in it are often looked down on by society, it does make you wonder why religion (not just Christianity) still exists.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Please practice necromancy outside of the forums. This thread is dead, and it should've stayed that way.

 

[cerad]

Please practice necromancy outside of the forums. This thread is dead, and it should've stayed that way.

If it was dead then show me the empty tomb.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Wait, maybe the thread is God?

 

[abgangulee]

I understand your anger and frustration with Evolutionary Science as it relates to the truth of the Scriptures.

Nevertheless, there are ways we spiritual Christians can encourage our peers to USE science to advertise the Gospels.

For example, a scientist (I used to be one) thinks of God as a creator, while a spiritual Christian may go so far as to think of God as a lover (not necessarily personal or sexual). For this reason, any literal work which credits ANY author without verifiable content seems like a hoax to a man of science (or even to a professional artist in many cases).

We Christians believe God Himself is the verifiable author of the Scriptures, and hence, our own personal faith in Him is the evidence of His verifiable authorship (in a sort of mutual but autonomous relationship).

In this proposed (by me) context, what is the place of a theory of 'fish or monkey becoming man,' and how can we incorporate such a theory into Scriptural readings?

First of all, as a former neuroscientist, I actually found evolutionary biology very useful and helpful in my work. The theory is very useful, because otherwise we look at every biological experiment as meaningless in terms of world history.
However, having found the truth of Christ (the King of the Jews), now my goal is to convince those who love Darwin to find great inspiration in the Bible without having to abandon their beliefs in evolutionary theory or give up their careers in evolutionary science. Many scientists do not see a way to do this and hence use Darwin to discredit the New Testament.

One popular method to find balance is found in Scientology, a philosophy made popular by celebrities like Tom Cruise. However, Scientology does not, in my opinion, lend enough credit to a Christian, monotheistic God who resembles man.

In my opinion, scientists are basically doctors, and Jesus Himself was primarily a healer. Hence, Christ condones science, and science should not see Christ as a refuter of its spiritual goals. So, in the Scriptures, we read that Jesus was the descendant of David. This is "sort of" evolution. The apostle Paul spread Jesus the Jewish man's doctrines to non-Jews. This "sort-of" sounds like practical species-mixing.

I think we should suggest that Jesus, the King of the Jews, encouraged all civilization-relevant practices including science. His teachings warn us to not place too much importance on science or we may go the way of the Nazis (with thoughts like, "Jews are a separate and inferior species as revealed by their learned and behavioral traits").

If I read your comments, "evolution is stupid," my scientific background makes me think you did not read the passages that describe Jesus healing crippled people. Perhaps medicine is witchcraft, but Christ taught, "render to Caesar, the things which belong to Ceasar," and to God the things which belong to God.

So, how can we Christians use science to advertise the Scriptures? Just say we love science! We love art!

 

[franklin]

If you want short, read my posts. I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

And how long have you had this desire to be a stand up comic John R The Seventh?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spirtual. Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads. Life is something that controls and manipulates the matter it occupies. Thus, those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material -- it's metaphysical, which by defintion is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world.

So when evolutionists scoff at Creationists for not putting forth a scientific theory for life, I believe they are asking us to play a game, which includes defining life according to a flawed premise.

But what's truly laughable about all this is that the "science" evolutionists put forth is not science at all. Like I said, "science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys." What they're attempting to sell the unsuspecting public is not to be found in nature -- it's found in their books.

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Thus there must, be thousands and thousands of common ancestors that link each creature to the next. For example, lions and tigers must have a common ancestor....man and ape must have a common ancestor...squirrels and skunks must have a common ancestor...bats and whales must have a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found -- or will ever be found -- but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science -- this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation. I honestly believe this is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole theory. The notion that a once-in-a-multi-million chance mutation can be beneficial and spread throughout a population via sexual reproduction is truly outrageous -- especially when you consider that populations are often separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and mutations are 99% destructive and/or deadly. Not only that, but a grand total of only 4,000 hominid bones have been dug up...(this includes humans, australopithecus, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc) Thus, there simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never -- and will never -- be witnessed.

And the fairytale continues. THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory -- not any actual evidence.

So there's the backbone to evolutionary theory -- and there is no real science to it -- it's all nothing but a wild fairytale....a fairytale dreamed up by a select few who have no intention of actually studying the material world -- as real science requires. Instead, their only intention is to give atheists around the world a vessel to latch on to so they can justify their own existence without having to acknowledge the truth of the Almighty Creator.
__________________
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, National Center of Scientific Research.

BORING

 

[Valkhorn]

One popular method to find balance is found in Scientology

Which is a cult and has NOTHING to do with science.

Scientology is garbage of the highest order.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Is God not capable of creating a Universe in which beneficial random mutation occurs? The God of PanDeism surely is (hence PanDeism is the only belief system that fully explains the Universe without internal contradiction, and with respect to the evidence that science uncovers)!!

Bless Yourself, for Thou Art God!!

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[FishFace]

Is God not capable of creating a Universe in which beneficial random mutation occurs? The God of PanDeism surely is (hence PanDeism is the only belief system that fully explains the Universe without internal contradiction, and with respect to the evidence that science uncovers)!!

All you have shown is that Pandeism is consistent with the universe, not that it is the only one.

 

[SLP]

If you want short, read my posts. I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

What a stupid thing to write.

 

[PacificPandeist]

All you have shown is that Pandeism is consistent with the universe, not that it is the only one.

But certainly Pandeism is the only rational and internally consistent explanation of a "Created" universe!!

 

[Upisoft]

But certainly Pandeism is the only rational and internally consistent explanation of a "Created" universe!!

All normal people believe their beliefs are rational and consistent. If we use this criterion, then all religions must be true.