‘If We Don’t Take a Stand Now’ against Hostility, the Church Could Become ‘Voiceless,’ Pastor Warns

[loveofourlord]

I disagree entirely with your conclusions because the foundation of most evolutionists (though perhaps not the ones here on this forum) is the Big Bang theory as well as the attempt to try to show the macro evolution of single cell organisms towards completely and totally different species of millions and billions cells organisms.

All evolution cares about is what happens when life got here, doesn't matter what majority believe or not. it's been proven that once life could arise no matter how you get from single celled to us.

 

[loveofourlord]

They do not do comparative religion classes in elementary public school (and you'd be hard-pressed to find that in any school prior to university level) Therefore that point is moot.

And yes, I am well aware that child-led prayer or study is constitutional. I'm not ever sure what you mean by the rest of that post.

Well the problem with compartive religion courses is that often they are just used to indoctrinate children instead of being genuine. My point is that the people whining about the bible not taught in schools would likely be the first to rage if any other religion was taught in schools uncritically. If there weas mandatory prayers and koran reading I doubt many of you guys be happy.

 

[Roderick Spode]

The Garden story is not poetry. From a literary standpoint, (and whether it is 100% accurate literal history or not} the Garden story is a etiology, "just so" story. Gen 1 is not quite formal poetry either, but it has been plausibly suggested to be the lyrics of a hymn.

Jesus certainly didn't present any references in Genesis He made as a story. He did tell stories at times, but Adam and Eve wasn't one of them.

I think you are trying too hard here.

I'm not saying there's a definite connection. Only that it's possible. In other words, the concept of eating a form of vegetation and gaining spiritual enlightenment is not uncommon. But of course in your case, considering the possibility might depend on your stance on the existence of Satan (spiritual deception).

Well, you can believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago with all extant species fully formed. That's one alternative. Or, you can say that the Earth was created billions of years ago and the extant species evolved from a single common ancestor over time. That's another alternative.

Yes, but for the sake of being a stickler, they would both be biblical creationism. Just two different types.

I do believe that humans have only been around for about 6,000 years. It matches the time line of documented history. The evolution timeline would suggest an extremely long period of humans being stagnate, not being able to create a historical record, and then in such a short period of time increase in knowledge. And even back in the earliest period of recorded history/civilizations, create structures we're not even sure how they were done, and even had a form of globalization.

 

[Vambram]

All evolution cares about is what happens when life got here, doesn't matter what majority believe or not. it's been proven that once life could arise no matter how you get from single celled to us.

No.
It has NOT been proven adequately at all.

 

[Vambram]

IF you are getting your ideas about
evolution- the pratts, falsehoods, and
misinformation you post- from said
scirntists, they are not very good
and they are not very honest.

I completely and totally disagree with your opinion.

 

[Vambram]

What you find adequate, what evidence "tells" you
is evidence in itself, namely, of being ill
informed, and committed to a religious
position.

Rejrcting as false what you fail to understand,
and committing to some other belief before even
consuding any other are two examples of intellectual
dishonesty.

And reveal tremendous arrogance, as per
( claiming to ) knowing more than any scientist on earth.

In evidence that you do not I submit your two mentions
of " proof", a term for math and whisky, not science.

And, if a theory is false, the key is to DISprove it
Not mention things you dont like.

Many try, zero success.

Arguments based on what you choose to accept
arent worth reading.


Creationists always fluff up how brilliant their guys
are, much the way tobacco companies used to do.

As for your eminantly estimable yecs-
All any of them have to do is some day some how
come up with facts to disprove ToE

Their score is zero. Except salaries.
Real good scjentidts, those.

IF ToE / deep time were false they would be silly
theories easy to disprove.

But all relevant evidence invariably confirms them.
Why?

One of the best qualified scientists for your team is a
Dr. K. Wise...PhD in paleontology!!

He should be able to knock 'em dead!

Here is a quote: " ...even if all the evidence in the
universe turns against yec. I will still be yec
as that is what the bible seems to indicate."

Which statement is exactly the definituon of intellectual
dishonesty.

Read wiki or something learn what intellectual dishonesty is.

And maybe think who your heroes are before you praise them.

Maybe you should think more about the dishonesty from the evolutionary scientists who appear to be your scientific heroes. I have zero problems at all in understanding the concepts, and so-called facts that the evolution scientists publish. That is why I know that they have failed to actually prove that macro-evolution really did happen.

 

[Vambram]

From the first paragraph in your link, italicised:
"Macroevolution1 is the belief that all extant species emerged from previous species, beginning with a simple, single-celled organism."
Delete the word simple. There is nothing simple about current single-celled organisms. Believing that there is goes someway to explain why some people imagine the step to multi-cellularity is a step too far.

"Macroevolution is accepted as true by the bulk of mainstream scientists, even though, without a God, it does not even have the means to get started on its path from single-celled organisms to humans."
That is an assertion offered without support. Single celled organisms have the ability to reproduce, the ability to evolve, the ability to exchange genes with other single celled organisms, and always the compulsion to be selected by the environment on the basis of their fitness. There are single celled organisms around today that, under appropriate circumstances combine with other single cells and behave as a single entity. And we can find thousands of steps that show the transition towards more advanced forms, such as salmon, giraffes, oak trees, brachiopods and humans.

"No sufficient evidence exists to support the blind belief that life could come from non-life, much less life that is equipped with an operating program, genetic information, and the ability to reproduce itself."
The theory of evolution is wholly independent of the origin of life, so the above sentence is irrelevant.

Compared to organisms with millions of cells, the complexity of single cell organisms are indeed simple.

 

[Astrid]

I completely and totally disagree with your opinion.

But no facts to go with your denial.

The things you post are not original.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe you should think more about the dishonesty from the evolutionary scientists who appear to be your scientific heroes. I have zero problems at all in understanding the concepts, and so-called facts that the evolution scientists publish. That is why I know that they have failed to actually prove that macro-evolution really did happen.

That youve no clue about science and
no interest in learning is well illustrated
by your continuing calls for "proof".

You can fool the fools but not us.

 

[DaisyDay]

Jesus certainly didn't present any references in Genesis He made as a story. He did tell stories at times, but Adam and Eve wasn't one of them.

I'm not saying there's a definite connection. Only that it's possible. In other words, the concept of eating a form of vegetation and gaining spiritual enlightenment is not uncommon. But of course in your case, considering the possibility might depend on your stance on the existence of Satan (spiritual deception).

Yes, but for the sake of being a stickler, they would both be biblical creationism. Just two different types.

Types or kinds?

I do believe that humans have only been around for about 6,000 years. It matches the time line of documented history.

Writing has not been around for as long as people have. Some peoples never developed writing, but they leave behind other artifacts.

The evolution timeline would suggest an extremely long period of humans being stagnate, not being able to create a historical record, and then in such a short period of time increase in knowledge. And even back in the earliest period of recorded history/civilizations, create structures we're not even sure how they were done, and even had a form of globalization.

Writing is a late development, but I don't think that indicates any kind of stagnation. People traveled and traded but there was not form of globalization as currently understood.

 

[Ophiolite]

Compared to organisms with millions of cells, the complexity of single cell organisms are indeed simple.

You are a complex, multi-cellular organism, and yet you grew from a single, simple (your word) cell. Case closed.

 

[Vambram]

You are a complex, multi-cellular organism, and yet you grew from a single, simple (your word) cell. Case closed.

The development of a person within the mother's womb is NOT evolution.
Case closed.

 

[BCP1928]

No.
It has NOT been proven adequately at all.

It's been "proven" adequately for provisional acceptance in the absence of contradictory evidence or any other plausible explanation. That is the highest status for a scientific theory.

 

[Vambram]

It's been "proven" adequately for provisional acceptance in the absence of contradictory evidence or any other plausible explanation. That is the highest status for a scientific theory.

The fossil record has too many missing links.

 

[BCP1928]

The fossil record has too many missing links.

Too many for what? Few or many, all the fossils we have confirm the theory, none contradict it. Scientists keep finding more fossils and when some turn up that fail to confirm the theory get back to us. In the meantime, all you've got is a story in a book that can't be confirmed at all

 

[Dan1988]

I see you don't know anything about the early history of geology.

Evidence?

I don't believe in sin, or demons, or devils.

Dear Sir, what you believe has on baring on the truth. Your beliefs can never change a single fact, they exist only in your own mind and you will have to account for ever word, thought and action when you stand before God to be judged.

The powers of darkness have deceived the world into thinking that everybody is autonomous and free to do what they want, without the fear of God's judgement.

I really can't understand how you can deny that you're a sinner and that you have been deceived by Demons. I know the "world denies the truth" the world being non Christians. I thought you believed in God, but I guess I underestimated you

 

[Astrid]

It's been "proven" adequately for provisional acceptance in the absence of contradictory evidence or any other plausible explanation. That is the highest status for a scientific theory.

Proven beyond reasonable doubt.
But reasonable doubt is not in play here.

 

[Dan1988]

It is kind of intriguing to consider the theory of evolution as a church. It's a church unlike any other in that you can bring your own God to it to worship. Any God you want, even Jesus Christ.

Your dead wrong about that. Yes you can worship any god you want in the church of evolution, except for the Lord Jesus Christ who hates those who believe in evolution. He has promise to cast them into the lake of fire, to be tormented forever.

The Lord is not just another god, He's a jealous God who hates all the other gods and those who worship them

 

[Dan1988]

No you haven’t. You’ve done a quick look at internet sites. That’s not research. The furthest you have gone is to look at the Discovery Institute’s website and YouTube.

Every few months some young firebrand like you, new to the world of debate storms into websites like these with a bag of PRATTs the size of a house.

Whether you’ll actually learn something here is entirely up to you.

Let’s start with ‘nothing’. Given what we know about spacetime how do we define nothing?

I would love to learn something new, but the fact is there's nothing new under the sun to learn. All things are as they always have been, now I know that will upset many but God said it, the one who created you and everything that exists.

Nothing is easily defined, it's the absence of God and of all created things. Which of 'course is impossible, so your question is invalid and shows a fundamental lack of understanding the reality of existence. The only reason we exist is to praise God and glorify His name.

 

[Astrid]

The fossil record has too many missing links.

Oh? So you admit there are links!

You seem very confused. First you deny
evolution, then you say there are links.

You really dont know what you are doing, do you.