Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

[Hammster]

Anyone who has the time can easily verify my statements that not even one of the scientists who are advocating today for evolution over creation has an academic background in creation biology making him qualified to have an educated opinion on the matter.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Anyone who has the time can easily verify my statements that not even one of the scientists who are advocating today for evolution over creation has an academic background in creation biology making him qualified to have an educated opinion on the matter.

The term “creation biology” is an oxymoron because creation belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural. Creation, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it. Nonetheless, there are a few score scientists who refuse to keep their religious views out of their job as scientists and who allow their imaginations to run into overtime.

I believe in old-earth creationism. I believe that the earth is old because science has proven that it is old. I believe in creationism because of my religious beliefs. I believe in microevolution because it has been observed in the laboratory and in the field, and I am cognizant of the fact that the mechanism for microevolution is exactly the same as the mechanism for macroevolution as taught by evolutionists since the day of Darwin. Therefore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon a proven mechanism. Furthermore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon massive amounts of evidence that supports the theory, and that the “evidence” against the theory is composed of nothing more than a few, isolated tidbits of anomalous data that need further study. Nonetheless, I believe, for religious reasons, that God created man and placed him upon the earth. Are my religious beliefs inconsistent with the evidence of science? No, they are not. Why? Because science does not take into consideration the possibility of the miracle of creation. Science and religion are two very different disciplines, both of which need to be pursued with clean hands and a right spirit.

 

[Hammster]

Like I said....Fail.

 

[Hammster]

So the lesson for today, kids, is do not mix science with theology. (Unless you're a theistic evolutionist. Then it's okay.)

 

[sealacamp]

Creation, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.

Baloney! Now your prejudice is showing. You just really have a hard time with Gods ability to do what ever he wants even if is steps through the rules of nature that He Himself made. You and your message are irrelevant but keep on banging that drum, God knows what you are doing.

Sealacamp

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Baloney!

What evidence do you have that it is baloney? It is very easy to insult people who disagree with you, but providing evidence that they are wrong and that you are right is a bit more difficult. When a Baptist Christian’s best argument is simply replying “baloney!,” how does that make Baptist Christians look?

Now your prejudice is showing. You just really have a hard time with Gods ability to do what ever he wants even if is steps through the rules of nature that He Himself made. You and your message are irrelevant but keep on banging that drum, God knows what you are doing.

Sealacamp

God is God, and being God, He cannot contradict Himself.

 

[Hupomone10]

creation belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural. Creation, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.

It can also be accurately said that macro-evolution biology belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, and of plain faith in a philosophy instead of scientific facts observed, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural.

Macro-Evolution, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.

It continues to amaze me how biased scientists can be, that they would only see one philosophy (creation) as miraculous and not the other, neither of which happens naturally or can be observed occurring naturally.

Biology as a science studies how things work, not where they came from; just as psychology is the study of how the brain thinks and feels, not where it came from. This in itself shows both the ridiculousness of biologists getting their underwear in twists when creation is suggested, and the ridiculousness of a true biologist even getting involved in or caring about this argument.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hammster]

I believe in old-earth creationism. I believe that the earth is old because science has proven that it is old. I believe in creationism because of my religious beliefs. I believe in microevolution because it has been observed in the laboratory and in the field, and I am cognizant of the fact that the mechanism for microevolution is exactly the same as the mechanism for macroevolution as taught by evolutionists since the day of Darwin. Therefore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon a proven mechanism. Furthermore, I know from science that the theory of evolution is based upon massive amounts of evidence that supports the theory, and that the “evidence” against the theory is composed of nothing more than a few, isolated tidbits of anomalous data that need further study. Nonetheless, I believe, for religious reasons, that God created man and placed him upon the earth. Are my religious beliefs inconsistent with the evidence of science? No, they are not. Why? Because science does not take into consideration the possibility of the miracle of creation. Science and religion are two very different disciplines, both of which need to be pursued with clean hands and a right spirit.

So what is your background that lets you evaluate these claims unbiasedly. How do we know that you aren't some blogger living in his mom's basement wearing Star Wars pajamas? Do you have a degree in microbiology?

 

[DeaconDean]

So what is your background that lets you evaluate these claims unbiasedly. How do we know that you aren't some blogger living in his mom's basement wearing Star Wars pajamas? Do you have a degree in microbiology?

Amen!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It can also be accurately said that macro-evolution biology belongs to the realm of the miraculous and the supernatural, and of plain faith in a philosophy instead of scientific facts observed, where as biology belongs to the realm of science and the natural.

Biology, including all of its many branches, is the scientific study of life, and science totally excludes the miraculous and the supernatural.

Macro-Evolution, therefore, cannot be studied scientifically and, hence, there can be no scientific evidence for it.

Macroevolution can be, and is, studied scientifically because your premise is false.

It continues to amaze me how biased scientists can be, that they would only see one philosophy (creation) as miraculous and not the other, neither of which happens naturally or can be observed occurring naturally.

Scientists see what is actually observable. They see evolution and speciation occurring by the mechanism of gene mutation and natural selection. Just 50 years ago, creationists argued that scientists have observed only microevolution take place, without speciation (macroevolution). Now that scientists have observed speciation in both the laboratory and in the field, creationists have re-defined macroevolution—but they do not at all agree about the new definition. Some creations argue that macroevolution begins at the subgenera level, some at the genera level, and some, including Answers in Genesis, at the family level.

Biology as a science studies how things work, not where they came from; just as psychology is the study of how the brain thinks and feels, not where it came from. This in itself shows both the ridiculousness of biologists getting their underwear in twists when creation is suggested, and the ridiculousness of a true biologist even getting involved in or caring about this argument.

The science of biology is the study of life, including the origin of life. Do you believe that posting false statements in order to prove an incorrect position makes Baptists look good?

 

[phoenixdem]

I suspect that God might be surprised to know that He has nothing to do with how His Universe is run. Only science can explain how biology works according to science worshippers.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So what is your background that lets you evaluate these claims unbiasedly. How do we know that you aren't some blogger living in his mom's basement wearing Star Wars pajamas? Do you have a degree in microbiology?

For all you know, I flunked out of school in the second grade! I could post my college and university transcripts showing the degrees that I have earned in the biological sciences, but how would you know if I were telling the truth? Moreover, even if you were to accept as true and accurate my college and university transcripts showing the degrees that I have earned in the biological sciences, how would they prove that I am unbiased in my statements and conclusions? Furthermore, if I were to post my academic qualifications, would I not be accused of bragging about my education?

Therefore, the readers of my posts should not take my word for anything. Instead, they should study the book of Genesis making good use of the best Hebrew lexicons and grammars, and by reading commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought and who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of Genesis; and, having read this material, compare with it what I have posted.

Having done that, the readers of my posts should read the literature on the science of evolution written by scholars who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of evolution; and, having read this material, compare with it what I have posted.

When, through their own study as described above, they have come to realize that I am posting accurate information, they should compare what I have posted with what creation “scientists” have written, and adjust their personal theology accordingly.

 

[Hupomone10]

Therefore, the readers of my posts should not take my word for anything. Instead, they should study the book of Genesis making good use of the best Hebrew lexicons and grammars, and by reading commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis written by scholars representing a wide spectrum of theological thought and who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of Genesis;

I agree. I heartily recommend as one of them Dr. Henry Morris's commentary entitled "The Genesis Record." His superior knowledge in the realm of science makes it one of the best and most informative on Genesis.

Having done that, the readers of my posts should read the literature on the science of evolution written by scholars who are recognized around the world for their academic excellence in the study of evolution; and, having read this material, compare with it what I have posted.

When, through their own study as described above, they have come to realize that I am posting accurate information, they should compare what I have posted with what creation “scientists” have written, and adjust their personal theology accordingly.

Yes, by all means you should adjust your theology according to what scientists say.

You might want to start with putting Mother Earth on a higher pedestal than Father God, as they do. And use fluorescent bulbs to pray by.

Blessings,
H.

 

[joshua41]

Yes, by all means you should adjust your theology according to what scientists say.

Hup, would you agree that the reason for there being so many denominations is that people make the Bible what they want it to be? No one has a perfect interpretation of the Bible--we are all humans and sinners. And until we are laid to rest we will just not know it perfectly.

I guess, my question is, how do you know your interpretation is correct? I can picture a God that created evolution being a God that is just as personal as a God involved in creationism.

In Isaiah, God says that it is he that stirs up waves and causes them to roar. Ofcourse, we know that this is done through the moon and weather systems depending on the location of the seas. Just because we can explain how God works in nature doesn't mean he is fake or not personal. When you get down to a deep enough level God is the one in charge in any type of science..


Evolution is fundamental information. I wasn't given a good education in it in high school, (probably because of where I grew up) which is something that I regret. However, people in Europe are generally taught it in high school.

 

[sealacamp]

I can picture a God that created evolution being a God that is just as personal as a God involved in creationism.

The problem lies with those that would say that evolution explains the origin of all life as we know it and that it happened by chance. Darwin did not say that but many of those that worship at the altar of evolution do and they insist that God does not exist, rather that all of what we see is all there is and that this all came about by a random set of events directed by nothing. That is what current evolution is to the vast majority of those that pound the evolution drum crying heresy to all who refuse to join in the dance.

Sealacamp

 

[joshua41]

The problem lies with those that would say that evolution explains the origin of all life as we know it and that it happened by chance. Darwin did not say that but many of those that worship at the altar of evolution do and they insist that God does not exist, rather that all of what we see is all there is and that this all came about by a random set of events directed by nothing. That is what current evolution is to the vast majority of those that pound the evolution drum crying heresy to all who refuse to join in the dance.

Sealacamp

Good point. I don't think that anyone here is using this evolution to support this argument though.

 

[sealacamp]

Good point. I don't think that anyone here is using this evolution to support this argument though.

Maybe not but considering the current environment against God and His word I will stand against evolution as it is displayed for the masses of the world. It has been mentioned by a poster or two here that the validity of Gods word is questionable. I disagree with that therefore I stand against anything that detracts from Gods authority, power, or validity.

Sealacamp

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Someone wrote, and Seal copied, "I can picture a God that created evolution being a God that is just as personal as a God involved in creationism."

Possibly, but it may not be his loving relationship that you are understating so much as his power. You see the bottom line, for this author, is that the God who can speak everything into 'perfect' creation in a matter of moments, is a wiser and more powerful god, than the one who must acquiesce to natural 'evolutionary' methods, and of course that god, didn't create everything 'perfect'. He just created a form which nature then took over and is currenty continueing to work out its perfection.

The God I know and love is the same God that Jesus spoke of when he cautioned people to fear not the one who can take our lives and then nothing more; but rather fear Him who can not only take our lives, but then cast our eternal being into the pit. There is a nature of God which we should fear, just as their is a nature of any judge that we should fear if we are wrongdoers and I'm confident that the Scriptures portray all created men as wrongdoers, save for the one who was able to make the acceptable sacrifice for my wrongdoing.

I'm a sinner. I accept that and I understand why. The nature of my flesh draws me into sin because I have always and still do struggle with the desires of my flesh. The 60's hippie culture hit it square on the head when they brought out the mantra, "if it feels good do it!" That is exactly what we, who have believed in the word of God as our testimony of God's revelation to His created, struggle with daily. Some of us are better at overcoming these desires than others, but it is a constant and daily struggle for God's children to be 'holy'. To be 'separate' from those following after the ways of the world which always seek to gratify the flesh. Even those who do great charitable deeds, apart from God, do it to gratify their feelings of being a good person.

So, while one may, although I have a hard time agreeing that the relationship of love is quite exactly the same for the one who sees all the creation as being made for just any purpose and initially only supporting wild animals and fauna, vs. the one who understands that all that God has made, from the farthest star of the universe to the microscopic cellular level of this earth, as having been made by a loving God who did it all for him who is a sinner. The love of that God, is far more powerful, deeper, stronger and intentional to this author.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mikecpking]

Maybe not but considering the current environment against God and His word I will stand against evolution as it is displayed for the masses of the world. It has been mentioned by a poster or two here that the validity of Gods word is questionable. I disagree with that therefore I stand against anything that detracts from Gods authority, power, or validity.

Sealacamp

I don't think it lessens the validity of God's word the fact of evolution and the fact the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Rather, it amazes me that God who is after all, the 'ancient of days' brought this wonderful universe into existence, something like 13.7 billion years ago and still lovve you and I as an individual and send his son to die for us so we may all have life in him.
The only thing that needs to change is some peoples' interpretation of Gen 1 and 2 as while it is not a science book, but puts the whole created order into perspective as God's creation; mankind being the pinnacle of it, and the importance of 'Sabbath' and keeping it holy.
Simply fighting against science and evolution is not helpful for winning people to Christ as most Christians I know accept it and for myself who has studied Geology and in the field and also theology recognise Gen 1 as a metaphor for remembering the Sabbath.
So there should never be a conflict between science and evoltion V Christianity.

 

[phoenixdem]

["The only thing that needs to change is some people's interpretation..."

The only thing? To many (more than some) changing the Holy Scripture to mean what we want it to mean is the same thing as calling God a llar and changing the intent of the Holy Bible.

"So there should never be a conflict between science and evolution V (sic) Christianity."

There are worse things that being called an "intellectually challenged baboon. If denying the words of God vs. believing a Theory of Evolution is the question, I am proud to wear the title of a dumb ape. Christians who believe in the literal words of God do not place a science book before the Holy Bible. And, it isn't the Bible-Believing Christians who think they are descended from the apes.

Just call me an "intellectually challenged baboon."