Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My faith on this topic is Scriptural and that of the opposite perspective...pro-evolution...are anti-Biblical and claim Scripture contains myth,etc. Jesus said to Satan: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word which proceeds from the mouth of God...and I could go on citing.So what makes you so sure YOU on the right track?
You don't understand?"The science field has set aside Darwin's book", what does that even mean?
It is somewhat akin to Blackstone's Commentaries in the legal field--of historical value in understanding many concepts (which is why I read it) but in general no longer necessary for the practice of law.The science field has set aside Darwin's book when it comes to origins...and yes, I now recall the study of Darwin and his book, but I was young and not scholarly...I was drilled on all his quasi-theorems/postulations
I think Postjudice is the correct term here. 160 years of Darwinian Natural Selection has failed to answer the basic challenges that the originator himself posed for the theory and even atheistic thinkers are beginning to look for another way.Sorry, your prejudice against Darwin's place in the history of science will never demote him.
And you don't think the people in the churches you disagree with feel the same way about their own beliefs?My faith on this topic is Scriptural and that of the opposite perspective...pro-evolution...are anti-Biblical and claim Scripture contains myth,etc. Jesus said to Satan: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word which proceeds from the mouth of God...and I could go on citing.
Ever any doubts on your end?
Isee these sorts of claims all the time. Strangely, they're never substantiated with any examples of all these things Darwin got wrong.I think Postjudice is the correct term here. 160 years of Darwinian Natural Selection has failed to answer the basic challenges that the originator himself posed for the theory and even atheistic thinkers are beginning to look for another way.
If we are careful and maintain a true scientific ethic Darwin may inherit a similar place to Newton in physics.
But as it stands, because of the dogmatic manner of his true beleivers, he may well end up becoming an amusing curio of historical science.
But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.It is somewhat akin to Blackstone's Commentaries in the legal field--of historical value in understanding many concepts (which is why I read it) but in general no longer necessary for the practice of law.
But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.
Isee these sorts of claims all the time. Strangely, they're never substantiated with any examples of all these things Darwin got wrong.
So how, after 160 years has this challenge been addressed? With many just so stories.To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by natural selection
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
The field of evolutionary development has revealed a number of biological forms that must have come about through a saltational event and there are a large number of non-adpative taxa defining traits evident for which there is no evidence for successive, slight modifications leading to the invention. In fact it can be shown that because of functional coherence, accidental invention in this way is fantastically improbable and thus physically impossible (Douglas Axe).possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by natural selection
Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.But, and this is crux, Darwin isn't the teaching text because he was wrong, but rather, that his discoveries have been added to by new evidebce and analysis, all of which reinforces his theory.
Hawking isn't a biologist. A great scientist, yes, but not a biologist.Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.
Funny enough, even the Darwinian pan-adapionist biologist Richard Dawkins is willing to consider intelligent panspermea as a possibility for terrestrial biogenesis.Not at all so...Steven Hawking found the entire theory lacking and tossed it in favor of intelligence planted by aliens from another planet.
So. when you say "creationists" it appear you are saying that's not you? correct? (I've read very little of the thread) And since you agree the bible doesn't support evolution, are you saying you don't take the bible as the truth? And if that is so, and getting back to my original point, do you think God is ok with you not believing his word?
No, I'm not aspiring to that because I know that God has His secrets that He isn't going to divulge them (assuming we'd understand any of those secrets even if He did decide to so divulge them). I'm glad to know that you don't make any pretenses to knowing "more" than the rest of us either.Is that what you are aspiring to through your supposedly scientific investigations which us silly, simpleton Christians neglect or dismiss in favor of taking God at His Word...the words of the Master, the Almighty?
Don't worry; I take Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians and Colossians very seriously.I'm married to a nuclear engineer from CalTech and he too is a creationist. I've heard most of the theories which run contrary and one should cut them off short with Genesis. To be a Christian is to trust Jesus and to trust Jesus is to trust His Word. He gave the Kingdom to the children and has hidden it from the wise. My advice...don't try to be sooo wise by worldly standards.
Hmmm...that's the first time I've ever heard that passage interpreted in a way that reads the boat as having "defied time." Which Bible scholar or pastor taught you that?Jesus walked on the water...defied gravity that is to say, Jesus had the boat arrive immediately at the other side the lake...defied time.
Fine. If you think Evolution is a theory for the godless, then I guess you're mind is made up. So, do you think the earth is approximately 10,000 years old according to Scripture?Jesus defies the wisdom of men...they are of limited intelligence. We accept Genesis only on the grounds of faith. And like it or not the theory of evolution is a theory for the godless and for those with an unhealthy curiosity and it appeals to the flesh which does not want to be accountable to God. If you ascribe to the theory you aid in such error. You try to mix the two and you create corrupted Christianity with seeds to grow deep and spread wide and more is called into question...like Scripture itself...as you yourself can attest to.
Not trying to treat you as a heretic.
Just reminding you that evolution is a heretical subject and should be taught as such.
God would not state in the most clearly defined terms that He created the world in six days if He had done otherwise. God does not deceive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?