Evolution vs. Creationism

[Ondoher]

c'mon now, this is not cool protocol.

and, yes, they would.

and, yes, again, most definitely, humanism and its right arm prodigy, evolution, are religions!

Repeating your claim that evolution is a religion is not supporting that claim. Please explain which step of the scientific method was skipped in creating or sustaining the theory of evolution.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

"Science is....a process....to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena."


Evolution is the study of, and explanation for, the diversity of life. It is certainly within the realm of science.

No, it is not. The quoted definition's subject is Science, not evolution. To automatically include evolution into this definition is an unqualified leap in logic.

The objectivity and, thus, its objective, is, at the onset biased to begin with; as defined above, the desire to seek the "best" explanation is not the viewpoint of the evolutionsits; rather, the preconceived attitude, "i believe it's right, so now I'm going to prove it's right" is the approach used. Nothing else is even considered. This is simply poor Science and has no business being included in the realm of Science, and needs to be returned to the aberrational religions and philosphies shelf.

I think this is what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the phrase "falsely so called".

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

I have no doubt there is a science truly so called of God but not this, not Satan's first church, Nimord's Babylonian humanistic evolutionary religion.

 

[Ondoher]

No, it is not. The quoted definition's subject is Science, not evolution. To automatically include evolution into this definition is an unqualified leap in logic.

The objectivity and, thus, its objective, is, at the onset biased to begin with; as defined above, the desire to seek the "best" explanation is not the viewpoint of the evolutionsits; rather, the preconceived attitude, "i believe it's right, so now I'm going to prove it's right" is the approach used. Nothing else is even considered.

You have confused evolution and creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains a great number of observations and makes many predictions that never fail to confirm. If you'd like to try to falsify evolution, feel free. But you will have to do it in the realm of science.

This is simply poor Science and has no business being included in the realm of Science, and needs to be returned to the aberrational religions and philosphies shelf.

This still sounds like creationism. I think you are confused. For example, please give me one testable prediction from creationism.

I think this is what the Apostle Paul meant when he used the phrase "falsely so called".

1 Timothy 6:20, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

I have no doubt there is a science truly so called of God but not this, not Satan's first church, Nimord's Babylonian humanistic evolutionary religion.

That's nice.

 

[UniversalAxis]

I can't believe that we are arguling with people who can't even tell the difference between science and religion. I'm done with this thread.

Don't argue with people who use circular logic, you'll only end up going in circles too.

 

[issa]

i recommend this site for Christians who want a more scientific basis for their faith!

and for unbelievers who want facts...check out FAQs in www.reasons.org

hope this helps!

 

[Pilgrim 33]

think they are trying to convert you to some pagan cult. You have no idea that Evolution is not a religion.

I put it somewhere between cult and religion, probably, cult, with its parent, humanism, as religion.

That is totally unfair to every Christian scientists

Well, there Christian Scientists (that 'wish' good health in and 'wish' bad health out) and, then, there are scientists that happen to be Christians.

who dares belive in Evolution;

First off, anyone that sincerely took the precepts of The Gospel of Jesus Christ to heart would have no need for crutch, evolutionary or any other kind.

they are still Christian.

That's certainly questionable as no one in the "evolutionary 'science' field" appears interested in seeing what God has to say on the matter, they're far too adamant, at times even hateful and spitefully, interested in their pride and being proved right and prefer to argue in and for their valleys of dry bones instead of fellowshippping in His Word.

Does anyone know of any good unbiased statistical links that list how many confirmed evolutionists are also confirmed Christians?

Of course, there, too, are some fanatical fundamentalists whose understandings of Scripture are often as poor as the mainstream evolutionist's and also say and do dumb stupid stuff just as the evolutionists do. so there's usually a lot of static in the channels there. Neither side can seem to resisit from sneeking a jab in here and there.

Someone says 'Evolution' and you say 'Heretic!'.

That's because most of the time they usually are and in the process it is generally their policy to make rude blasphemous statements along the way. At this point, is there really any difference between the mouth and the heart of a man?

If I'm wrong about this you should be more clear where you stand. About other religions

All religions are harlots and all have roots in their mother, old Babylon, Mother of Harlots.

and about science.

science truly so called. There is an angel in Scripture named, Palmoni, listed in the original's margin, translated this means 'Numberer, the wonderful Numberer; the Numberer of secrets". Apparently, there is, at least, one angel whose job it is to oversee the perfection of numbers. were this, in fact, so, what kind of an effect could it have on the sciences?

"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"-Daniel 8:13

 

[Pilgrim 33]

[/color]
creationism.
creationism.
creationism.

This is the antagonistic evolutionist's term for anything the Bible contradicts in their search for evolutionary justification. They must separate the weaker in Christian understanding from the creation conflicts the evolutionists confront. It's the only way they can follow along with their mother religion's (humanism's) one world philosophy and, in the process, water down the Word of God by watering down Its followers.

 

[ProtestantDan]

This is the antagonistic evolutionist's term for anything the Bible contradicts in their search for evolutionary justification.

Is this completely unlike the YECs repeated assertions that science is "wild guesses" and evolution is not science? And that evolution is a religion? And that people who believe in evolution and in Christianity don't exist?

You seem to reduce anything in the field of science as a lie, as blasphemy, and do so by inventing wrong definitions for science, evolution, etc. and claiming that it is all "the work of the devil."

And in doing so you have offended many theistic evolutionists such as myself.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

evolution is not science? And that evolution is a religion.

It is one thing to start with saying the Bible is infallible and proceed to verify this by physical observation.

It is quite another to start with saying evolution is true and proceed to prove it to the Bible.

 

[Ondoher]

This is the antagonistic evolutionist's term for anything the Bible contradicts in their search for evolutionary justification. They must separate the weaker in Christian understanding from the creation conflicts the evolutionists confront. It's the only way they can follow along with their mother religion's (humanism's) one world philosophy and, in the process, water down the Word of God by watering down Its followers.

Odd, this did not seem to address my post. Perhaps you'd like to try again.

 

[BurningHeart]

(no) immortal Soul

fwiw, That also kills the idea of a place of eternal fiery damnantion; a concept that goes against the very justice and mercy of God.

This doesn't exactly sound like a Christain Theology. A little more like the Doctrine of Annihilation, taought in some eastern religions.



Are you sure you got your religion choice right in your profile?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

fwiw, That also kills the idea of a place of eternal fiery damnantion; a concept that goes against the very justice and mercy of God.

This doesn't exactly sound like a Christain Theology. A little more like the Doctrine of Annihilation, taought in some eastern religions.

the concept of hell is not found in Judaism or Christianity. It is only found in pagan religions and beliefs. the word, hell, is an english word that did not come into being until the mid 1500s.

 

[BurningHeart]

It's interesting that all pagan religions had a place of punishment. But not the Jews, though there were Pagan influences. And not the Christians, which, also, sustained Pagan influences.

True, the early Hebrew culture had no developed idea of a place of eternal punishemnt, but they DID very much hold to an idea of the ressurrection from the dead, and eternal life. The Christians on the other hand did hold to a place of eternal punishment and suffering, as well as to a bodily ressurrection to new life eternal, be it in Heaven or Hell.

We must also keep in mind words frequently have more than one meaning in the Bible just as with languages today, and often not the same words and more words and definitions vary from, say, the English, then there is an array of figures of speech, customs, traditions, etc to take into account.

itmt, the word "hell' dates to sometime around the 1500's somewhere around just prior to King James's movie and kinda in keeping with Shakespearean lingo. How "the grave" (most places where the KJV uses the word "hell" it means "grave" or, "the pit", which seems to be a collective for all graves) got turned into a place of eternal torment, one theory is the early Christian (Catholic) fiction writers were trying to describe what a life without Christ would be like and crippled by a lack of Bible understanding (no available Written Word, common and uneducated misunderstandings, etc). I would add to that the early Catholic Church appears to have used it as a means for additionally ensuring its continued financial existence by coupling it with selling indulgences, etc.

I agree with you that in many older languages, and even in some modern ones, that WHICH words were used can at times be as important for interpretation as WHAT those words said, one leads to the other. However, this goes to the heart of what you were saying. There are really 3 words translated as HELL - one is 'SHEOL' - this does mean grave in some instances. It is a Hebrew word and derived from a root meaning "to ask" or "demand" it conveys an idea of insatiableness. But, where it is used, the description is often much more than simply a grave. It is described as deep, with bars, the dead going down into it. It is rendered as "grave" 31 times in the OT and is used 65. KJV generally renders it 'hell'. Is is also described as the 'abode of the dead', and the home of the wicked.

In the NT however, there are 2 words used which are both translated 'hell'. The first is 'hades'. If you've ever studied Greek Mythology, you will know that hades was the realm of the dead. It was a prison, a realm of the wicked, and a place that was most times, unescapable. It is described as having gates and bars, with locks. And it is 'down' also. It carries much the same scope as the word sheol in hebrew. In hades, the righteous and unrighteous are separated, from one another, the righteous going on to 'paradise'.

The other word in the NT translated as 'hell' is Gehenna. It designates the place of the lost, and the fearful nature of their eternal existence there.

in general, sheol and hades are simply impling the idea of the grave, without and notion of happiess or misery. Hades is used 11 times in the NT and only once is it translated a grave, though. Furthermore, in some instances, it is described as a place of torment. and biblical scholars tend to think that is is an intermediary place between death and ressurrection at the final judgement much as "abraham's bosom" is describe as. Gehenna on the other hand in a place of eteranl fire and torment. Gehenna is the word most oft used in the NT to describe the place of future torment or punishemnt.

As to the New Jerusalem question, we have something else to bear in mind. There are a lot of promises, prophecies, blessings and curses in the Bible. Most of them are for the Jews. Prooftexting Scripture is a mistake made by far too many Christians. In the process, the Christians "steal" all of the good stuff meant for the Jews and kindly leave all the curses for Israel and the Christians, by and large, end up one really confused bunch when it comes to promises, prophecy, end times, judgment, etc. The New Jerusalem is a Jewish issue (as is the book of Revelation), it is not Christian. Jews are God's promised earthly people to rule the Nations saved at the Judgment of Nations and in the new earth from NJ with The Messiah as their king Israel will rule those nations on the new earth.

First, I'm not ceratin what you mean by the judgement of the nations. If you are referring to the Final, Great White Throne Judgement at the end of time, then all mankind will be there, Jew, Christain, Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, etc. Not just the Jews.
Second, I don't recall anything in Eschatology teaching that the Jews will reign with a 'king Isreal' on the new earth. Although there will be a new heaven and a new earth
Finally, The book of Revelation was written not to Jews, but to the Christian Church - read the introduction chapters of it for proof of this - and much of the promises and blessings, curses and punishments originally set out in the OT for the Jews, still bear meaning for the Chirstian today.

otoh, Christians are God's promised heavenly people that lived by faith. Christians are promised to be "where" Jesus is and Jesus is in the Father and The Father in The Son and the Christians in the Son and The Holy Spirit in the Christians and in the New Jersualem there is no Temple for The Almighty and The Son ARE The Temple.

go figger.

As for this, it sounds much like a gnostic doctrine of dualism, although you haven't yet said that it's okay for us to to as we please since only the soul lives forever. As for Jesus and the Father being one, this refers not to phsical placement, but to relational positioning, as it does with believers and
christ, and the HS. The FAther and the Lamb (Jesus) are referred to as the temple in the New Jerusalem, but The New Jerusalem is on the New Earth, not in the New Heaven. It would be impossible for Believers to dwell with Godas the fianl verses of Revelation say we will, if we are in heaven and He is on Earth. The Revealtion clearly says that those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be the only ones to enter the temple in the New Jerusalem.

The Truth of God, the freely offered gift of living forever, is perverted in The Lie by Satan to deceive mankind they can do it all on their own over time by evolving from primordial slime (dust) into a lot of little gods. It's not hard to see How The Truth has been perverted into The Lie.

Take the second most powerful being in Creation (Satan). Add man, to whom God has promised (how) much (?). Satan, understandably, is a little more than perturbed at the thought that mere mortal man, living only by faith having never seen, is promised far greater than even he once possessed and we can understand why Christians are so hated by the devil and his minions and children.

As for this, I would agree Satan is against Christians, but he is also against all of mankind, because we are God's creation, dearly loved.
Satan also is NOT, and never has been the second most powerful being in creation. He is a created being and has NO power according to the Bible.

 

[BurningHeart]

The arguments for Vapor Canopy and Hydroplate are flimsy, and YECs haven't even begun to explain the craters in the moon. (see other threads)

I think that if the universe and the earth were a measly 6000 or so years old, then the comlexity of the universe would have to be explained.
After all, if the universe were so simple as to be created in 6000 years for the purpose of God's human experiment, then why did He create the rest of the universe? What purpose is there in a huge universe when all that is necessary is one planet and a sun?

All of the various branches of science, history, biology, physics, geology, anthropology, archeology, etc., have independantly confirmed that the earth is very old.
As far as Creationist Evolution: That is not Evolution Vs. Creation, that is Evolution and Creation together, and therefore not relevent to the debate except as a middle ground.

Just a quick question here, not necessarily for you directly Universal, just for the group, your post raised the question though. If you take a look at the theories against creation such as - Red Shift, Light Source Distance vs. Light Speed, or Craters on the moon - is it not possible that if you are beginning with an Omnipotent God, He could have simply placed it all there to begin with?

if He's creating it, can He not create it in any way He so desires?
Maybe this gets more into a philosophical topic, but I think it's something good to think about.

 

[raphael_aa]

Just a quick question here, not necessarily for you directly Universal, just for the group, your post raised the question though. If you take a look at the theories against creation such as - Red Shift, Light Source Distance vs. Light Speed, or Craters on the moon - is it not possible that if you are beginning with an Omnipotent God, He could have simply placed it all there to begin with?

if He's creating it, can He not create it in any way He so desires?
Maybe this gets more into a philosophical topic, but I think it's something good to think about.

I think it's good you mention all that evidence from a range of sciences for an ancient cosmos. Of course God could just create things so but wouldn't that be kind of misleading? God creates the appearance of age?

 

[Mistermystery]

Just a quick question here, not necessarily for you directly Universal, just for the group, your post raised the question though. If you take a look at the theories against creation such as - Red Shift, Light Source Distance vs. Light Speed, or Craters on the moon - is it not possible that if you are beginning with an Omnipotent God, He could have simply placed it all there to begin with?

if He's creating it, can He not create it in any way He so desires?
Maybe this gets more into a philosophical topic, but I think it's something good to think about.

Now that woul'dn't be very logical, now would it? Why would God mislead us into thinking diffrent thoughts then the actual truth?And what are we left with? The only thing that could attest that the Earth is 6000 years old is a bible interpretation. Just that. there is nothing else then that would even remotely point to an young earth. If you are saying that this is true you are creating a lieing God.

 

[Jet Black]

Just a quick question here, not necessarily for you directly Universal, just for the group, your post raised the question though. If you take a look at the theories against creation such as - Red Shift, Light Source Distance vs. Light Speed, or Craters on the moon - is it not possible that if you are beginning with an Omnipotent God, He could have simply placed it all there to begin with?

if He's creating it, can He not create it in any way He so desires?
Maybe this gets more into a philosophical topic, but I think it's something good to think about.

well of course he could, but then this raises a theological problem, since it makes God deceptive. Science cannot touch such hypotheses any more than it can touch the claim that the universe was made last tuesday, with everything in place as is, your memories and all. One then has to ask why God did all this. why the ERVs, why the isotope concentrations, why the neutrino pulse before the light from SN1987A (a supernova that according to this hypothesis never exploded) why the fossil record, why the telomeric sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2, why manatee toenails, why the layered ice cores, why the thrust faults, why the aquatic fossils atop everest, why the evidence of extreme age on the moon, in the asteroids and on other solar bodies, why the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the sun and so on and so forth....

 

[Arikay]

If God did fake everything, it doesn't seem to have a point. Young Earth vs Old Earth does not appear to be a salvation issue in the bible and the false evidence seems to be so well done that we can take advantage of it in medicine. So it would appear that those that believe his lie and are christians win in this life and the next, those that don't believe his lie and are christians may not have as good of a life now* but have a good one in the after life. So believing his lie is the better option, making you wonder why he lied at all.

*This is assuming that anti-evolutionists who claim evolution is false, actually stuck with their beliefs enough to refuse medicine and technology that used evolution in it's development.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

I realize the humanist public school system has brainwashed and "purified" the history books of a lot of data it would just as soon forget; sadly, most who started school in the @ 70' and 80's timeframes are unaware of this and have been raised on a diet of lies and deletions and feel such is true never knowing there is more they have been denied access to in the "public" school systems.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim, if so please present it.

Ghost

 

[DJ_Ghost]

You can not say evolution is science, it is not, it is a theory. it uses science to further its cause but not science. science was around or started to understand how things work not to prove how we became.

William, evolution is a science. Before claiming something is "not science it is a theory" you should realy look into what the term "theory" means in a scientific sense.

Ghost