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

[sfs]

those who are beholden to the lie of evolution do not yet know the God of Holy Scripture who created time, space and matter out of nothing and has given man all the senses necessary to know Him including that which is common to all.

Sorry, but deciding who knows God and who doesn't is not your job.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Christians are different to everyone else, we're not autonomous free thinkers like non Christians.

I'll take free-thinking, frankly. (I'm proud to be an American, cause at least I know I'm free...)

Our thoughts are captive in Christ, that means we're not free to dive into mysticism and human philosophy.

I'm not interested in captivity, mysticism, or philosophy. None of which have a thing to do with evolution. (Which you clearly do not understand.)

Those are abominations in Gods sight and human wisdom and reasoning are also abominations.

Wisdom and reasoning are "abominations", eh. Did you run this by your priest to check first?

God didn't create His elect to be tossed around like boats without sails on a stormy sea. God gives His elect the gift of discernment, which keeps us from falling prey to the Devil's lies and schemes. God is not impressed with self appointed wise guys, so He hides the truth from them and gives it to the uneducated humble people.

I would suggest you try humility yourself. I find your posts notably deficient in that aspect.

 

[Yttrium]

Wow, this thread really blew up while I wasn't looking, thanks to all the evolution discussion. I'd swear the infamous creationist Matt Powell was running through the thread, thanks to all the "something from nothing" and "pigs (or other critters) from rocks" comments, which are some of his most well-known nonsense.

We do have a problem that there are many creationists who view a number of scientific theories, notably including the Theory of Evolution, as assaults against Christianity. However, they confuse their interpretations with Christianity in general, or possibly they assert that their interpretations must be what all Christians should believe. I don't really see any way to reconcile this, since science isn't going to go away, except for waiting for those particular creationists to drive down their own numbers. As some arguments get more absurd (like something from nothing or pigs from rocks), more people are going to see them as counterproductive strawmen.

 

[loveofourlord]

Lo, and many a time I have asked the same
q about a "half formed" creature.

This is our big chance to learn for the
Infallible one is here.

I read a book years ago, might have been richard dawkins that explained how it worked.

if you could see every single mother of a rabbit all the way back to the common ancestor between rabbits and leopards, and then all the way forward to the leopard along the female line. each female would look like the female before and after it, after every 5-10-20 would look similar, but if you compared every 50th rabbit they would look different untill it was something different, all the way up and down the lines. There would be no bird with half a wing, or half formed, because the changes and progression on the small scale be so small and nearly impossible to notice, it's only over long scale and generations would you see it.

 

[BCP1928]

Sounds like somebody uncovered an old stash of Chick Tracts.

 

[loveofourlord]

And surely you can see how absurd and insulting it is to other people when someone (maybe like yourself) Strawmans the other's viewpoint.

Here's a suggestion about how to get through to those other people (i.e. persons like me, Evil-Lootion-Ist): Actually fully engage their sources and then gripe about it all!

yeah, like I said pages back, hard to take creationists seriously when they use arguments that anyone with a high school level of understanding of evolution realize even if evolution was wrong, their argument isn't even what evolution claims.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sounds like somebody uncovered an old stash of Chick Tracts.

nahhhh, to be fair it was probably that graphic novel/comic that chick tracts also did :> man I remember reading that as a kid, so cringey with what I know now about evolution.

 

[7thKeeper]

Sounds like somebody uncovered an old stash of Chick Tracts.

Oh man, I'd forgotten those existed.

 

[Ophiolite]

since you have admitted to being an atheist and therefore are here only to be a provocateur, you confirm that you do not yet know anything about science until you first understand why you have a con-science which your godless worldview can not account for and are therefore beholden to a simplistic fairytale that nothing in and of itself became everything for no purpose, reason or meaning.

Several points to address.

1. I did not admit to being an atheist. "Admit" carries the connotation that I was somehow concealing this and had been forced into revealing it. I imparted that information because I felt it important at that point to ensure their was no doubt as to my position in regard to the reality of the Christian God. (Technically I am agnostic in regard to gods, but not in regard to the Christian god as portrayed by most denominations.)

2. Please do not guess at my motives for engaging in discussions on this forum. I have no interest in provocation. I am interested in discussion, in exposure to different opinions, into deepening my knowledge, imparting some of my own. Provocation acts counter to all of these. I would appreciate it if you would retract that personal attack.

3. I have not "confirm(ed) that (I) do not yet know anything about science until (I) first understand why (I) have a conscience". This clause is ambiguous. Do you mean conscience as in "moral sense", or conscience as in "consciousness"? If the former I can confirm that I do know how humans acquired a conscience and that the mechanism is wholly consistent with the God envisaged by many Christian denominations. If you mean the latter, consciousness, that is currently one of the most intriguing and important topics that science is investigating.

4. The administrators of this forum have quite rightly stated that the Christian faith should not be attacked as a fairytale. Would you be willing to accord a similar courtesy in the other direction?

5. There is nothing simplistic about the structure of evolutionary theory , a theory which assembles the work of tens of thousands of intelligent, enthusiastic, hardworking, dedicated investigators (including many, many Christians) , working in dozens of different fields, over the course of more than two centuries, producing millions of scientific papers and developing a well tested, rigorously assessed, soundly validated explanation of the diversity of life on this planet that in its depth and breadth and veracity exceeds by many orders of magnitude any alternative explanations.

6. We can assign our own reasons to what we wish, as a species and as a biosphere, to make of the universe. You seem happy with yours, I am happy with mine. Let's leave it like that.

7. Having just read a further response from you in which you butcher my forum nom de plume, tell me to grow up and repeat the "fairy tale" meme I see little hope that we can have a productive exchange. I would be delighted if you prove me wrong in your reply.

 

[Ophiolite]

I read a book years ago, might have been richard dawkins that explained how it worked.

if you could see every single mother of a rabbit all the way back to the common ancestor between rabbits and leopards, and then all the way forward to the leopard along the female line. each female would look like the female before and after it, after every 5-10-20 would look similar, but if you compared every 50th rabbit they would look different untill it was something different, all the way up and down the lines. There would be no bird with half a wing, or half formed, because the changes and progression on the small scale be so small and nearly impossible to notice, it's only over long scale and generations would you see it.

Sounds like Dawkins. It could have been The Ancestor's Tale, which I regard as the best of his books and definitely one of the better popular books on evolution.

 

[Dan1988]

I read a book years ago, might have been richard dawkins that explained how it worked.

if you could see every single mother of a rabbit all the way back to the common ancestor between rabbits and leopards, and then all the way forward to the leopard along the female line. each female would look like the female before and after it, after every 5-10-20 would look similar, but if you compared every 50th rabbit they would look different untill it was something different, all the way up and down the lines. There would be no bird with half a wing, or half formed, because the changes and progression on the small scale be so small and nearly impossible to notice, it's only over long scale and generations would you see it.

Deluded Dawkins, conveniently neglected to mention that his theory is baseless because nobody has ever found one of those transitional fossils. I will give my hose to anyone who ever finds one. I know that nobody will ever find one because they don't exist period

 

[BCP1928]

Deluded Dawkins, conveniently neglected to mention that his theory is baseless because nobody has ever found one of those transitional fossils. I will give my hose to anyone who ever finds one. I know that nobody will ever find one because they don't exist period

How do you explain away all of the transitional fossils that have already been found.?

 

[Ophiolite]

How do you explain away all of the transitional fossils that have already been found.?

And that is setting aside the point that each fossil that had offspring (prior to fossilisation ) is a transitional fossil.

 

[Dan1988]

I'll take free-thinking, frankly. (I'm proud to be an American, cause at least I know I'm free...)

I'm not interested in captivity, mysticism, or philosophy. None of which have a thing to do with evolution. (Which you clearly do not understand.)

Wisdom and reasoning are "abominations", eh. Did you run this by your priest to check first?

I would suggest you try humility yourself. I find your posts notably deficient in that aspect.

God said, that mankind became subject to Satan's rule after Adam sinned against God. God gave man over to Satan, because Satan managed to tempt Adam to sin, so Adam and his descendants became the property of Satan. So as sad as it is, the truth according to God is, there's no such thing as free thinkers and nobody has free will.

God said, you can only serve God or the Devil. There is no third option to choose, those who think they aren't serving either are automatically serving Satan by default and they don't even know it.

Thankfully God sent His Son to pay the penalty for sin and redeem those He chose to save before He created the world. Many professing Christians have a problem with the Bible doctrine of predestination and election but true Christians have no problem with anything God does.

God killed billions of men women and babies with a world wide flood, human reasoning might say that's cruel and unfair. Christians say it's good and just, because everything God does is perfectly righteous and good.

God didn't save His elect because we're better or smarter than the non Christians. He never told us why He chose us and left others in their sin. He doesn't have to answer to anyone as there is no higher authority in the universe to give account to.

God said that mans wisdom and reasoning is cursed, as it leads to destruction every single time. Everything man does, thinks and says is sinful. That's why Christians need to die to themselves and be born again into Christs body.
We are His bride and as such we obey Him and forsake all else. It may sound paradoxical, but we are free in Christ. He protects us and keeps us from falling prey to Satan. Non Christians have no protection, every single one will be possessed by Him. God created him to be the smartest and strongest of all, so no man or Angel can withstand His power. Only God has full control and power over Him.

 

[Dan1988]

How do you explain away all of the transitional fossils that have already been found.?

OK, you can have my house if you tell me where one exists. I would abandon my faith immediately if you help me find a single example please

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

OK, you can have my house if you tell me where one exists. I would abandon my faith immediately if you help me find a single example please

Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BCP1928]

I didn't make up the thousands, as I know thousands of Christians are scientists and every single true Christian rejects it as a lie from hell. Reason being, you can't be a Christian and not believe in God at the same time. God said He created everything in a finished mature state, Darwin comes along and says, no God's lying believe in me I'm smarter than God.

That's the dilemma we face, I know the choice is difficult for many so we have the opposing views.

Speaking of lying, why are you lying about the theory of evolution denying the existence of God? Everybody here already knows it does not,

 

[BCP1928]

OK, you can have my house if you tell me where one exists. I would abandon my faith immediately if you help me find a single example please

How far away from a state university do you live? Such institutions usually have large fossil collections which they will be glad to show you if you ask politely and try not to rant at them about how the theory of evolution is a lie.

 

[Estrid]

I read a book years ago, might have been richard dawkins that explained how it worked.

if you could see every single mother of a rabbit all the way back to the common ancestor between rabbits and leopards, and then all the way forward to the leopard along the female line. each female would look like the female before and after it, after every 5-10-20 would look similar, but if you compared every 50th rabbit they would look different untill it was something different, all the way up and down the lines. There would be no bird with half a wing, or half formed, because the changes and progression on the small scale be so small and nearly impossible to notice, it's only over long scale and generations would you see it.

Not that I'm the one who needs that explained
nor you the one with the much- less-than
half- formed argument against ToE.

 

[Dan1988]

Tiktaalik

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sorry to disappoint but there was no evidence of that fish transitioning to another species. Sadly it's still like a Mexican walking fish, it still hangs around swamps so it never became a mammal or or insect or bird or any other species. it remained the same species while it adapted to it's environment by growing legs to help it forage for food on the waters shore.

As I've tried to explain to others, we don't have any evidence of any species transitioning to a different species. Your example showed the bleeding obvious adaptation we see happening all around us. Creatures grow long hair in cold environments etc.. this has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with adaptation for survival