Dear Christian, why don't you ...?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Still not a very satisfactory definition. I am sure there are many that think that they are sancitfied by Jesus that aren't. Can you be a bit more specific?

Exclusive club Christianity always prats on like this. It locks out everyone but the holier-than-thou sinners.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still a whole lot of nothing.

Fine.

I'm not the one scratching my head.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exclusive club Christianity always prats on like this. It locks out everyone but the holier-than-thou sinners.

Moses was a Christian, was he?

 

[dad]

Exclusive club Christianity always prats on like this. It locks out everyone but the holier-than-thou sinners.

So Jesus saves all, not just those He saves? None are sanctified? Those who accept salvation by grace are holier than thou?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Moses was a Christian, was he?

So Jesus saves all, not just those He saves? None are sanctified? Those who accept salvation by grace are holier than thou?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM

One at a time please.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

... accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?


I'm not looking for: a summary of your doctoral thesis; a link to some peer-reviewed article; a witty one-liner; a funny picture; a video out-link; or for that matter anything but your honest thoughts as to why you don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

Honestly, even before I became a Christian the ToE was so fantastic that it was nonsensical to me. I still think it is. To think that this global ecological apparatus built itself with no outside force or guidance is inconceivable to me.

On the contrary the beauty and perfection (that I see in it) is evidence enough of the Creator. It's no more complicated than that.

Regarding scientific exploration of evolution, at every turn the discoveries of yet more complexity demonstrates that they aren't going to figure out just how Goddidit. Every new discovery requires them to keep another ball in the air. At some point it will all come tumbling down.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Honestly, even before I became a Christian the ToE was so fantastic that it was nonsensical to me. I still think it is. To think that this global ecological apparatus built itself with no outside force or guidance is inconceivable to me.

On the contrary the beauty and perfection (that I see in it) is evidence enough of the Creator. It's no more complicated than that.

Regarding scientific exploration of evolution, at every turn the discoveries of yet more complexity demonstrates that they aren't going to figure out just how Goddidit. Every new discovery requires them to keep another ball in the air. At some point it will all come tumbling down.

 

[dad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVRxdPWV3RM

One at a time please.

Just say the gist of what your video preaches.

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian, meaning "Of Christ." Christ is certainly no evolutionist. He taught that the Scriptures were the inspired word of God and could be counted on for accuracy. He quoted extensively from the Scriptures and told us that if we didn't believe the words of Moses then we wouldn't believe in Him either. The stories of creation, Cain and Able, Noah and the flood and Lot's experiences were references as historical facts. Jesus, who was there at the time, knows the difference between mythology and reality. If the Lord believes in the special creation of man than who am I to reject it?

And for what? Theories of man? Prepositions of those enshrouded in their own convictions for whom everything must have a scientific explanation? The 333 miracles listed in the Bible have no scientific explanation, so we must either reject them all or come to understand that the Creator, not the laws of physics, is the ultimate lord of the universe. If we live in a purely physical world there can be no miracles. The dead cannot come back to life, so how can we call ourselves scientific if we believe in a resurrected Christ? How do we call ourselves Christians if we do not?

Do living things change over time? Indeed. How else could so many varied species come from the more limited pairs of animals on the ark? However, as we observe adaptation we can see that it is a conservative process whereby traits are extinguished or accentuated but never newly acquired. Irradiating fruit flies for thousands of generations didn't produce any benevolent mutations that led to a more advanced fruit fly. It added deformities which were later extinguished in subsequent generations free of radiation. Experiments to demonstrate evolution only demonstrated that it doesn't happen.

I don't believe the evolutionist for the same reason I don't believe the atheist who says "There is no God." I know better. God created man. He didn't evolve man. Were it different He would have told us. It isn't supposed to be easy to believe. Faith is hard. We are surrounded by people who try to undermine our faith, many of them thinking that they are only educating a poor, misguided soul who has refused to worship at the altar of Darwinism. The true lies not in the rocks, but with the Lord who created the rocks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian, meaning "Of Christ." Christ is certainly no evolutionist. He taught that the Scriptures were the inspired word of God and could be counted on for accuracy. He quoted extensively from the Scriptures and told us that if we didn't believe the words of Moses then we wouldn't believe in Him either. The stories of creation, Cain and Able, Noah and the flood and Lot's experiences were references as historical facts. Jesus, who was there at the time, knows the difference between mythology and reality. If the Lord believes in the special creation of man than who am I to reject it?

And for what? Theories of man? Prepositions of those enshrouded in their own convictions for whom everything must have a scientific explanation? The 333 miracles listed in the Bible have no scientific explanation, so we must either reject them all or come to understand that the Creator, not the laws of physics, is the ultimate lord of the universe. If we live in a purely physical world there can be no miracles. The dead cannot come back to life, so how can we call ourselves scientific if we believe in a resurrected Christ? How do we call ourselves Christians if we do not?

Do living things change over time? Indeed. How else could so many varied species come from the more limited pairs of animals on the ark? However, as we observe adaptation we can see that it is a conservative process whereby traits are extinguished or accentuated but never newly acquired. Irradiating fruit flies for thousands of generations didn't produce any benevolent mutations that led to a more advanced fruit fly. It added deformities which were later extinguished in subsequent generations free of radiation. Experiments to demonstrate evolution only demonstrated that it doesn't happen.

I don't believe the evolutionist for the same reason I don't believe the atheist who says "There is no God." I know better. God created man. He didn't evolve man. Were it different He would have told us. It isn't supposed to be easy to believe. Faith is hard. We are surrounded by people who try to undermine our faith, many of them thinking that they are only educating a poor, misguided soul who has refused to worship at the altar of Darwinism. The true lies not in the rocks, but with the Lord who created the rocks.

Very nice post.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian, meaning "Of Christ." Christ is certainly no evolutionist.

(my bold)

He's been credited with saying things (by his followers), which might very well lead one to conclude that: either he knew more than what we will ever know about everything and went along with the existing mindset so as not to attract too much attention to himself, which would eventually be the death of him. Or, he didn't and he was subject to the same sort of stupidity that all of us are, in the face of the sheer volume of data which needs to be embraced in order to burp along in time with Einstein on his bike to the shop.
Perhaps his growth from childhood to adulthood, was a sort of shedding stupidity -- and eventually realizing who he was he began to speak in parables, using numerous metaphors -- so as not to anger a very superstitious people in a very superstitious time.

I often wonder if he'd been born now, whether he'd last five minutes.
I also wonder what sort of things he might have been whispering in the doctor's ears at 12. "You won't understand it now, but in 2015, someone will write words on a thing called 'Internet' saying that I wasn't an 'Evolutionist' --- and it came to pass." To which all the doctors began beating their brows in indignation.

 

[Queller]

Honestly, even before I became a Christian the ToE was so fantastic that it was nonsensical to me. I still think it is. To think that this global ecological apparatus built itself with no outside force or guidance is inconceivable to me.

The very definition of an Argument from Incredulity.

On the contrary the beauty and perfection (that I see in it) is evidence enough of the Creator. It's no more complicated than that.

Regarding scientific exploration of evolution, at every turn the discoveries of yet more complexity demonstrates that they aren't going to figure out just how Goddidit. Every new discovery requires them to keep another ball in the air. At some point it will all come tumbling down.

I'm sure you can give an example of this, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure you can give an example of this, right?

Right.

For every "missing link" that is found, two more missing links appear.

 

[KWCrazy]

He's been credited with saying things (by his followers), which might very well lead one to conclude that: either he knew more than what we will ever know about everything and went along with the existing mindset so as not to attract too much attention to himself, which would eventually be the death of him. Or, he didn't and he was subject to the same sort of stupidity that all of us are, in the face of the sheer volume of data which needs to be embraced in order to burp along in time with Einstein on his bike to the shop.

Jesus knew everything, but did not reveal everything; at least not to most of us. Indications are that He shared more with His disciples than they were permitted to share with us. As far as shedding stupidity goes, He taught the learned when He was twelve, though very little of His early life is recorded. Presumably He would have been taught Joseph's trade, though there is no record of Him ever building anything. Wouldn't that be a thing to own; something crafted by the son of God before He began His great mission?

Remember that Jesus said that to know Him we needed to trust the words of Moses. I personally believe that Jesus walked with Adam and Jesus gave the commandments to Moses. Jesus said that nobody had ever seen the face of the Father, and while Moses only saw a burning bush, Adam walked with God. Was it God the Father, or God the Son? Regardless, it was the hand of God that wrote the Fourth Commandment on a stone tablet, which contains the affirmation that the Lord did, in fact, create the world in six days and rest on the seventh. Jesus spoke of the great Flood, mentioning Noah by name as a real, historical event. He quoted from Genesis about Adam and Eve.

I think the great truth that Christ knew was that none of this is real. This world we live in was constructed as a testing place for humans to see which of us would be worthy to be with Him. Since we all failed, He sent His son to pay our debt. There then was only one requirement for salvation; faith in Christ and in the things that He taught. Given that, if the entire world becomes convinced that man evolved, the flood never happened and the Bible is just a nice book of mythology, I and my house will serve the Lord. I can't how evolution could be anything but a lie if the the word of God is true.

 

[com7fy8]

your honest thoughts as to why you don't accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

Well, the Bible says God created everything.

Also, "evolution" has not been proven by the scientific method, which requires that you make an "educated guess" about something that is true or not, then do experiments which will clearly prove or disprove your hypothesis. This has not been done with evolution; so it is not scientific. There have been no clear-cut experiments done which clearly prove or disprove it.

Also, I see how any of us can believe what fits with how we are. I understand the "evolution" is the idea that creatures compete and the fittest survive to pass on their characteristics and abilities which are superior and therefore make them successful in staying alive. But there are humans who compete and try to be more than others, in order to have the lives they want. So, I can see they could find an evolutionary idea to be acceptable, since it fits with their ways of "survival of the fittest".

But Jesus says for us to be kind and gentle with everyone, not competing to be better or to have more than others. So - - what this does to sports, I don't know

And the idea is that we trust God and depend on Him to make the way for whatsoever He wants for us . . . so we don't need force and deception and greed > we get better than what conquerors struggle for > "Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Romans 8:37)

Also, I was told that evolution includes mutations which produce genes which can help a creature compete. But it can take thousands of years for just one good gene to show up. Also, I would say that humans and animals and other organisms have things which require more than one gene to work together > there can be very complicated things, and I do not think it would be "probable" that more than one interdependent gene could mutate at the same time in evolutionary history of an organism . . . if it can take thousands of years, as ones say, to produce only one good gene.

Plus, it looks like there are a lot of things which can not function unless there are two or more very specific genes to produce those functions . . . including in biochemistry where there are enzymes which must be produced by at least one gene, per enzyme, and they could not have been selected alone and wait for others, because alone they would have no value.

And we have behaviors which have shown up recently in human history. If behavior is caused by genes, as I was told while studying genetics, it "might" take more than a few years to produce such behaviors as born-again Christian stuff, and various religious stuff > I mean, I would think that born-again behavior would require a lot of very specific brain pathways and functions, and genes would be needed to produce these structures and functions; all these would need to show up in "evolution", in only about two thousand years; I don't think so

You would have to have genes of mutation showing up together to produce how I experience God personally sharing with me in His peace, for one example (Colossians 3:15, Romans 5:5, 1 Corinthians 6:17). There are people who think I am just a product of molecules doing their thing. I find it interesting that ones think molecules can produce my experiencing and enjoying God. If I am a product of evolution, why would evolution believing people object to me? . . . if I am a product of natural selection?

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't believe in evolution because I am a Christian, meaning "Of Christ." Christ is certainly no evolutionist. He taught that the Scriptures were the inspired word of God and could be counted on for accuracy. He quoted extensively from the Scriptures and told us that if we didn't believe the words of Moses then we wouldn't believe in Him either. The stories of creation, Cain and Able, Noah and the flood and Lot's experiences were references as historical facts. Jesus, who was there at the time, knows the difference between mythology and reality. If the Lord believes in the special creation of man than who am I to reject it?

And for what? Theories of man? Prepositions of those enshrouded in their own convictions for whom everything must have a scientific explanation? The 333 miracles listed in the Bible have no scientific explanation, so we must either reject them all or come to understand that the Creator, not the laws of physics, is the ultimate lord of the universe. If we live in a purely physical world there can be no miracles. The dead cannot come back to life, so how can we call ourselves scientific if we believe in a resurrected Christ? How do we call ourselves Christians if we do not?

Do living things change over time? Indeed. How else could so many varied species come from the more limited pairs of animals on the ark? However, as we observe adaptation we can see that it is a conservative process whereby traits are extinguished or accentuated but never newly acquired. Irradiating fruit flies for thousands of generations didn't produce any benevolent mutations that led to a more advanced fruit fly. It added deformities which were later extinguished in subsequent generations free of radiation. Experiments to demonstrate evolution only demonstrated that it doesn't happen.

I don't believe the evolutionist for the same reason I don't believe the atheist who says "There is no God." I know better. God created man. He didn't evolve man. Were it different He would have told us. It isn't supposed to be easy to believe. Faith is hard. We are surrounded by people who try to undermine our faith, many of them thinking that they are only educating a poor, misguided soul who has refused to worship at the altar of Darwinism. The true lies not in the rocks, but with the Lord who created the rocks.

This is one of the simplest and, yet most truthful and to the point posts that I have read on this subject.

Amen and Amen

 

[Queller]

Well, the Bible says God created everything.

Also, "evolution" has not been proven by the scientific method,

I have to stop right here. Nothing is proven by the scientific method. Evidence either supports a scientific theory or does not support a scientific theory. A scientific theory is always capable of being thrown out if evidence comes along which better supports a different theory.

which requires that you make an "educated guess" about something that is true or not, then do experiments which will clearly prove or disprove your hypothesis. This has not been done with evolution; so it is not scientific. There have been no clear-cut experiments done which clearly prove or disprove it.

Incorrect.

The Lenski Experiment

Tiktaalik

Also, I see how any of us can believe what fits with how we are. I understand the "evolution" is the idea that creatures compete and the fittest survive to pass on their characteristics and abilities which are superior and therefore make them successful in staying alive. But there are humans who compete and try to be more than others, in order to have the lives they want. So, I can see they could find an evolutionary idea to be acceptable, since it fits with their ways of "survival of the fittest".

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Nothing humans acquire during life is passed on via genetics.

But Jesus says for us to be kind and gentle with everyone, not competing to be better or to have more than others. So - - what this does to sports, I don't know

Where does Jesus say we are not to compete?

And if He does say that, why does Paul contradict that idea?

1 Corinthians 9:24
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

2 Timothy 2:5-6
An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.

Also, I was told that evolution includes mutations which produce genes which can help a creature compete. But it can take thousands of years for just one good gene to show up.

Says who? Define a "good gene".

Also, I would say that humans and animals and other organisms have things which require more than one gene to work together > there can be very complicated things, and I do not think it would be "probable" that more than one interdependent gene could mutate at the same time in evolutionary history of an organism . . . if it can take thousands of years, as ones say, to produce only one good gene.

Plus, it looks like there are a lot of things which can not function unless there are two or more very specific genes to produce those functions . . . including in biochemistry where there are enzymes which must be produced by at least one gene, per enzyme, and they could not have been selected alone and wait for others, because alone they would have no value.

Ah, the old Irreducible Complexity argument. Refuted long ago.

The Flagellum Unspun

And we have behaviors which have shown up recently in human history. If behavior is caused by genes, as I was told while studying genetics, it "might" take more than a few years to produce such behaviors as born-again Christian stuff, and various religious stuff >

That type of behavior is not in any way produced by genetics.

I mean, I would think that born-again behavior would require a lot of very specific brain pathways and functions, and genes would be needed to produce these structures and functions; all these would need to show up in "evolution", in only about two thousand years; I don't think so

No, all born-again behavior (whatever that is) requires is cognition.

You would have to have genes of mutation showing up together to produce how I experience God personally sharing with me in His peace, for one example (Colossians 3:15, Romans 5:5, 1 Corinthians 6:17). There are people who think I am just a product of molecules doing their thing. I find it interesting that ones think molecules can produce my experiencing and enjoying God. If I am a product of evolution, why would evolution believing people object to me? . . . if I am a product of natural selection?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, the Bible says God created everything. <edit>

À quel endroit allons-nous ?

 

[SteveB28]

Very nice post.

Possibly, but "nice" doesn't equate with "true".

His statement is riddled with errors.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Summon the Riddler!