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

[Ophiolite]

Does the Evidence REALLY Support Human Evolution? (Part I) - Apologetics Press

Many ardent evolutionists are apparently unaware of the fact that, according to experts, human evolution is not only unsubstantiated, but that the evidence stands against it. While a person has the freedom to continue to believe it, he should realize that he must maintain a blind faith in order...

apologeticspress.org

Does the Evidence REALLY Support Human Evolution? (Part II) - Apologetics Press

Many ardent evolutionists are apparently unaware of the fact that, according to experts, human evolution is not only unsubstantiated, but that the evidence stands against it. While a person has the freedom to continue to believe it, he should realize that he must maintain a blind faith in order...

apologeticspress.org

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.

 

[Estrid]

I believe that the scientists who contributed to apologetics press website are very well educated with established degrees from reputable universities. I believe that a person is doing himself/herself a disservice by dismissing them as not being good scientists.

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.

 

[Roderick Spode]

That time is being hastened by religions like Christianity who demand acceptance of ridiculous falsifiable propositions about the origins of our universe, ourselves, the nature of human sexuality, etc. instead of pursuing the Great Commission, which is immune to empirical falsification.

Who's demanding that you accept any proposition about the origins of our universe? I'm focusing on that since that's what we've been specifically discussing.

 

[Roderick Spode]

That would be creation ex deus, the third alternative.

If you mean what I think you mean, then no, that's not what I meant.

I'm still referring to the concept of God speaking the universe into existence, as opposed to creation using a celestial laboratory. Basically, not ex-nihilo in it's purest form, something from nothing with no attachment to intelligent purpose, or no rhyme or reason.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Would I be right in suggesting that it is a Protestant rather than a Traditional church?

I suppose so. It's certainly not Catholic. It would fall into the evangelical category.

Interdenominational churches generally seem to have a Pentecostal/Charismatic connection.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That would be creation ex deus, the third alternative.

I've seen that as ex Deo.

 

[Roderick Spode]

In other words the term "kind" is useless for describing lifeforms.

I wouldn't say it was useless. The term serves it's purpose in the book of Genesis.

To give a crude example, the term muscle car is useful to describe a type of American made high performance vehicle. To try and identify precisely which cars are, and which are not muscle cars is very difficult. But we know enough to sponsor a successful weekend muscle car show.

 

[BCP1928]

I suppose so. It's certainly not Catholic. It would fall into the evangelical category.

Interdenominational churches generally seem to have a Pentecostal/Charismatic connection.

And devotion to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is where I think this all begins.

 

[BCP1928]

...something from nothing with no attachment to intelligent purpose, or no rhyme or reason.

Which the theory of evolution does not claim and which scientists, along with Traditional Christian theologians, know that it cannot claim. The theory of evolution is not an alternative to divine creation; it is only an alternative to biblical creationism.

 

[Roderick Spode]

And devotion to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is where I think this all begins.

True!

 

[Roderick Spode]

Which the theory of evolution does not claim and which scientists, along with Traditional Christian theologians, know that it cannot claim.

Correct!

The theory of evolution is not an alternative to divine creation; it is only an alternative to biblical creationism.

There are both atheists and bible creationists/creationists that might make that claim (an alternative). I personally would love to see scriptural interpretation that would suggest evolution. Or, I've never seen an explanation as to why Genesis would refer to God creating a fully mature man or woman if it didn't happen that way. I have seen it suggested that because one description of Adam in Hebrew translates to mankind (although the Greek word used in the O.T. doesn't seem to) suggests evolution.

Wouldn't evolution still be Biblical creationism? The bible does say:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who's demanding that you accept any proposition about the origins of our universe? I'm focusing on that since that's what we've been specifically discussing.

There is not generally accepted scientific theory for the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the expansion of the Universe from a hot, dense state and it is very well evidenced.

 

[BCP1928]

Correct!
I've never seen an explanation as to why Genesis would refer to God creating a fully mature man or woman if it didn't happen that way. I have seen it suggested that because one description of Adam in Hebrew translates to mankind (although the Greek word used in the O.T. doesn't seem to) suggests evolution.

Figurative or non-literal interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been considered by many theologians throughout church history. That a literal interpretation is the only possible correct explanation consistent with Christian Doctrine is a relatively recent invention.

Wouldn't evolution still be Biblical creationism? The bible does say:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It certainly doesn't contradict it, but that belief is neither unique nor original to the Bible.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

They do in the UK. My son is eight and he has been taught about several religions that are popular in the UK. Funny how a country like the US with it's religious protections doesn't.

 

[Estrid]

They do in the UK. My son is eight and he has been taught about several religions that are popular in the UK. Funny how a country like the US with it's religious protections doesn't.

Prolly coz the christians dont want
competition.

 

[Roderick Spode]

There is not generally accepted scientific theory for the origin of the Universe. The Big Bang Theory is a theory of the expansion of the Universe from a hot, dense state and it is very well evidenced.

That's been my understanding.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Figurative or non-literal interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been considered by many theologians throughout church history. That a literal interpretation is the only possible correct explanation consistent with Christian Doctrine is a relatively recent invention.

Depends what you mean by literal. We could use literal, figurative, analogical, poetic speech in one sentence.

I personally believe that a literal Adam and Eve as fully created mature human beings. I don't personally believe there was a literal snake that tempted Eve. I think that was used as a comparative addressing the devil as being similar to a snake.

The problem with assuming Genesis is strictly poetic, is that for one, Jesus referenced O.T. events as literal. And Jesus often let on when he wasn't being literal (parables), except when using figures of speech that were extremely obvious (if your right hand offend thee...).

Something like the Tree of knowledge of good and evil could cause a knee jerk reaction to assume poetry. But is it really necessary? We have certain vegetation that when ingested have been claimed to provide spiritual enlightenment. Although in these particular cases I would say they are deceptive. But the same priciple.

It certainly doesn't contradict it, but that belief is neither unique nor original to the Bible.

Then I guess I don't understand the reference to TOE being an alternative to biblical creationism.

 

[BCP1928]

Depends what you mean by literal. We could use literal, figurative, analogical, poetic speech in one sentence.

I personally believe that a literal Adam and Eve as fully created mature human beings. I don't personally believe there was a literal snake that tempted Eve. I think that was used as a comparative addressing the devil as being similar to a snake.

The problem with assuming Genesis is strictly poetic, is that for one, Jesus referenced O.T. events as literal. And Jesus often let on when he wasn't being literal (parables), except when using figures of speech that were extremely obvious (if your right hand offend thee...).

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.

Something like the Tree of knowledge of good and evil could cause a knee jerk reaction to assume poetry. But is it really necessary? We have certain vegetation that when ingested have been claimed to provide spiritual enlightenment. Although in these particular cases I would say they are deceptive. But the same principle.

I think you are trying too hard here.

Then I guess I don't understand the reference to TOE being an alternative to biblical creationism.

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.

 

[Estrid]

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.

I think you are trying too hard here.

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.

If by alternative you mean pick between
true and false.

In any investments i make, i investigate,
keeping preconceived ideas and sentiment
our. I do numbers, and theres no feelings
in numbers. Or facts. No "alternative" numbers
like 2 and 2 is 5.

No alternative facts to a lot being in a flood zone.
No "same facts different interpretation" that makes a
con man story true.

Bible literalists dont grasp that super simple principle.

 

[loveofourlord]

It's actually sad, not funny to see the vast majority of people being deceived by the Devil with His witchcraft. The Devil is the great pseudo scientist, He leads the way for the bottom feeders to follow

dude if it didn't work it wouldn't be the foundation of modern biology, your just making a fool of yourself. Whats sad is people lying to themselves to hold onto something untrue, we have all the data and evidence to back up evolution, creationism has nothing, but you will pretend it does. Good job I'm sure gods happy with the people you guys turn from him with these insistent lies.