Evolution

[Cabal]

No, what it is is your chosen field being used by atheists. Not mere atheists but those that consider Christians as being "stupid."

Creationists, perhaps, and the cap does fit.

Belief in God as the Creator shows utter ignorance to them.

That may be, but as long as faith-based assertion is kept out of the science lab, which I do anyway, it shouldn't be an issue. If merely being a Christian is an issue, then I'd be concerned. But taking people in positions of authority who repeatedly make categorically wrong statements to task is not an issue for me.

Doesn't it concern you that they champion evolution? Do you question that maybe, just maybe you are being deceived? If they so strongly adhere to it, as it is so part of their atheistic beliefs shouldn't you question mightily why you believe it?

Oh goodness, not this "but ATHEISTS believe it!!!!!1" again.

Atheists also believe that breathing is good for you, shall I stop doing that too?

Actually, as Dawkins stated...evolution is what made him see the light..the dark light.

I'll tell you straight - evolution hasn't caused nearly as many issues to my faith as creationists have. Evolution is not the problem here.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

1Whirlwind: you are treading on very dangerous ground when you state or even imply that someone who believes in evolution must be an atheist. Let me remind you once again: everyone that comments here on this thread has acknowledged that they are a Christian, who believes that God created the Universe, and that they are saved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; salvation is not an issue!

And again, just to remind you: evolution is simply biological change in an organism that produces a new and genetically-distinct organism, such as new breeds of dogs, new varieties of roses, new strains of pathogenic organisms,etc. Don't keep writing more into the definition of evolution than what it is!

Evolution does not delve into how life first began; it simply describes a mechanism by which the vast multitude of living organisms that we see may have originated from common ancestors through genetic change.

When we're talking about animal breeding or the outbreak of new pathogens like those that cause AIDS- the scientific evidence is irrefutable. As we go back in time and try and establish whether two distinct organisms living today, such as a mule and a horse, or a gorilla and a chimpanzee, have a common ancestor, there is less evidence. Part of the problem here is that the further back we go in time, the more we need to rely on fossil evidence, which becomes more scarce with time. Also, fossils are relatively rare- soft body parts and organisms tend not to be preserved, so we have a very incomplete and biased account of life in the fossil record.

Good science acknowledges this- it makes it clear that the strength of a scientific theory depends on the consistent evidence that supports it; if new evidence, such as the discovery of common DNA in living organisms, supports a theory, then the theory becomes stronger; if not, it has to be modified or discarded.

So when an evolutionary biologist claims as absolute truth that man evolved from apes, or all life originated from one accidentally formed single cell, or, heaven forbid, that there is no God, then he/she is treading on dangerous ground; that is, if there is no evidence to support such claims, it becomes speculation, and is no longer science.

-----------------------

I'm probably wasting my time here again- you seem to remain resolutely convinced of your point of view, and refuse to consider anything that questions your narrow interpretation of the Bible. Sadly, you are also not willing to acknowledge the possibility that others here, who love God as much as you do, and have no problem reconciling their faith with science, have a completely legitimate and valid point of view.

It is this kind of attitude that I maintain promotes unnecessary strife within the Christian community and makes non-believers question our faith, and brings it into disrepute. God doesn't do this- so it can only be another tactic of satan to try and divide and conquer and turn us away from Christ.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Cabal]

I know you believe in God....thou doest well...but is it enough?

Of course, I must believe in your personal interpretation of the Bible to be saved....lol whatever

We are to be His jewels, His servants. Can a servant, called and chosen by Him, ignore what His master has written and replace it with the ideas of an atheist?

Oh no! Atheists again!

So if they say the earth goes round the sun, we must accept geocentrism purely to be different!

And the scientific mind is above all others? Remember what goeth before the fall thing.

Not what I claimed - please kindly stop misrepresenting my remarks.

False witness is a sin, just to remind you.

It is simply a sad fact that many creationists do not have the ability to understand what science claims, and they show this when they attempt to argue for creationism.

1 Corinthians 12:4-10 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Yes, thank you, wisdom is only given to some...sadly

12:17-22 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

12:23-25 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

That's great. Unfortunately none of this means that if someone says 2+2 = 5, they're right. Similarly, none of this stops some creationists from being utterly incapable at science.

Perhaps if they, y'know, actually respected their brothers and sisters in Christ who have been given the gift of intelligence, things might not be so bad.

So, if a non-intellectual (stupid creationist...believer in God's Holy Word, "intellectual incompetent" )

Aw, diddums. Are you feeling hard done by? Didn't you just post a verse comparing me to devils, and call the beliefs of the majority of your Christian brothers and sisters lies?

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

member of the body of Christ doesn't agree with the atheistic theory of evolution

Evolution is not atheistic. It, like every other scientific theory, including the ones you inconsistently accept that were obtained in exactly the same fashion as evolution, is agnostic on the issue of God.

then...they are "less honorable" than say...scientists?

Where did I use the word honour? It is nothing to do with honour. It is to with being right.

Less worthy, less intelligent, less deserving?

No, merely less intelligent in some cases.

That certainly has the ring of Dawkins to it.

It wouldn't if you actually represented what I said accurately instead of resorting to your own paranoia and projecting it onto me.

Folks need to be very careful about pegging others as intellectual incompetents...historically it has taken us in dark places.

Yes, it has led to this notion that everyone is a special flower child whose opinion is equally valid for the mere fact of holding it. Nuh-uh. In science, there is correct and there is incorrect.

Why must God, the Creator, be separated from science...His creation? That is the point of this discussion. Evolutionists kick Him out of science but Creationists don't, or shouldn't, dismiss science for it is of God and is a gift given to man.

And this is where your laughable inconsistency rears its head again. Science has not included God as explanation for several centuries, well before evolution came along. All the remainder of science you accept? It was obtained despite not including God as the explanatory mechanism.

So, why do you not reject all science? Why merely evolution?

Worship is a funny thing Cabal. It means to give reverence. Some revere their cars, their homes, their things more than God. Others revere their ideas and theories, their intelligence, their place in the world more than God. Those things are their gods when those things replace God.

In exactly the same way they treat a god? Not necessarily.

What has evolution done except to replace the Creator? So, who is it they serve, what is it they revere?

Who says they revere anything?

It is the atheists form of worship, their god. It is but one of the fruits from the tree. It doesn't devalue true worship of the True God.

It does when such claims are little more than weak attempts to gain parity with atheism.

Please replace your use of the word "religion" with the word God. He is what is being replaced...not religion. It is quite simple.

Christianity is a religion. To argue otherwise is semantics. It's usually done by Christians to one-up on other religions, which belies a remark lack of confidence in the religion they believe to be the one true faith.

Is there proof Jesus is God? Is there proof He literally walked the earth? Is there proof He offers eternal life? The same Book that proves these things proves creation.

Testimony is not empirical proof.

I quite agree...it was a ridiculous question I asked in response to your rather silly question. One ridiculous turn deserves another.

Funny that. My question was silly in response to your bad logic. Don't like it, don't use faulty logic.

I see. You don't include Him in how creation functions and yet...He is the Creator?

Why should I need to include Him if He is Creator? If you truly believe He is omnipotent, he can be involved in the operation of nature without being overt or empirically detectable. Maybe you just lack faith.

Do you question why this particular theory is so loved by atheists and so scorned by believers when others aren't?

I'm well aware that atheists like that theory. The popularity of a theory, however, has little to do with whether it is correct or not.

You see it as "tramping their personal interpretation" and yet...their personal interpretation isn't what is written.

I agree, their interpretation of the Word is not referring to reality.

Of course that doesn't appear to bother you as they are no more than "staggeringly intellectual incompetent" children of God to you.

Why should I care about the opinions of those who can't recognise their fallible human interpretations as fallible human interpretations?

Did you not just write that God is to be eliminated from the scientific classroom...or, in your words, religion is to be? That is dismissing God.

Oh, I thought you meant altogether. No, just within the scientific methodology.

Hey, don't blame me - not my fault. God said he doesn't want to be tested.

I will agree that well-meaning creationist can turn minds from God through ignorance of Scripture. To me they are termed Bible thumpers. But, it is done out of ignorance as they haven't been taught truth.

Neither ignorance nor well-meaning is an excuse.

However, as for creating atheists...surely you jest! On the one hand we have evolution and on the other creation. Which way are atheists going to follow?

No, I surely don't jest. I've encountered several former creationists, now atheists who have said they were more put off by the attitude of creationists to reason than to evolution itself.

Ignore this at your peril. Given your attitude, there may be a millstone in it for you.

 

[Cabal]

If you believe in evolution then you should own it! Evolution as taught to the WORLD is ape to man not some piddly organism to organism. Shouldn't you be proud of it or get out of it....your choice!

Wow, you really are incapable of acknowledging your own ignorance of evolution.

Stop posting strawmen, and actually learn what something is before you condemn it.

Call a spade a spade and stop tip-toeing around this. Ape to man...God lied.

Only to a human with their own personal literalist interpretation. Big woop.

Let me know when they discard this...or when hell freezes over. This will be the sacred theory of the evolutionists until the last trumpet blows no matter what truths they are shown.

Nope. You won't find any mention of God in the scientific literature, about anything, only in discussion of God as a psychological/sociological concept.

A few outspoken scientists like Dawkins may state their opinion of God on their own lecture circuits etc, but that does not by any means mean that evolution/science is against God.

Oh please. What you see as "unncessary strife" is teaching truth. One of Satan's tactics is involved in this but it has nothing to do with truth.

Satan's certainly involved here alright

 

[Mick116]

Retracted.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Cabal]

For your benefit...you should stop thinking this is "my personal interpretation."

Lol, after you've been paddled over your inconsistency multiple times now? Not hardly! Only a human's personal interpretation could be that off the mark.

Read His Words Cabal. I don't ask you to believe anything I say...but I do ask you to believe Him.

Already do, so there is no issue.

That argument is very tiring...and has nothing to do with this.

If you'd care to read carefully, you'd notice that it wasn't the same argument.

But I can see why you're still keen to ignore that argument - as ever, it is what makes your inconsistency and your denial of your personal interpretation of the Bible clear as day.

So, you didn't make the comment about creationists as having a, "staggering lack of intellectual competence?"

About some. Therefore, not all. And this doesn't mean that scientists are all smarter than creationists or are superior, but merely that there are a lot of creationists whose limited ability hold them back from understanding science.

I'm sorry you are so sad Cabal...those stupid little creationist minds can be just unbearable at times.

Oh, the lack of intelligence isn't what bothers me. It's the attitude that often goes with it - that the mere fact of having an opinion is somehow meant to trump research, and that anyone who remotely sticks up for science is some kind of faulty Christian. Or that it's somehow become acceptable for scientists to be one of the few professions around where any unqualified, uneducated joe can tell them what their job is or how they're doing everything wrong or trying to unseat God or whatever nonsense they've thought up.

They just don't have the capacity to understand what the truly wise ones do. Perhaps it's because they still have the minds of apes? What do you think?

Some of them certainly are in the shallow end of the gene pool.

We are blessed to have you with us.

What? Just going by what the Bible says. Isn't that what you wanted me to do?

No, unfortunately it doesn't...however it does teach us how to behave as we learn.

It's a shame that some creationists never seem to learn to behave. Nor learn.

One may be utterly incapable at science and another utterly incapable at accepting truth and then...another totally capable of both science and truth. Those my friend are truly wise ones.

Yup - theistic evolutionists have got both down. Who else does?

One must act respectful of others in order to receive the respect of others[/I]. ~ Whirlwind

Many creationists don't merit respect at all in that case.

Didn't know you were dishing it in my direction. I have a healthy ego Cabal. I don't feel stupid or that I lack wisdom. So, what you're throwing around doesn't influence me.

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

Please read the verse I posted again. You weren't compared to devils. If you feel a connetion know it isn't me leading you there.

Whatever, wouldn't be the first time you've hid behind the Bible to pass comment like that in this thread.

As for the beliefs of the majority of brothers and sisters. First, I don't find that to be truthful. Second, I'm not calling them liars. I am saying evolution is a lie.

Didn't say you were calling them liars - still doesn't mean calling something you have displayed absolutely no understanding of a lie is remotely reasonable, rational or justifiable.

As I said before...the lie is what is written by our Father or the lie is written by Darwin.

False dichotomy fail.

To claim agnosticism with evolution is a tad silly. It ELIMINATES Him from the equation. In essense, there is "no deity" for we evolved and were not created.

No, it is agnostic because it can address neither involvement NOR lack of involvement of God. It's simply not capable of doing that - the degree of involvement is not knowable. It can't rule him in, it can't rule him out (lest we forget, this is the same approach to EVERY modern scientific theory, you know, all the other ones you accept besides your arbitrary uninformed rejection of evolution). Therefore it is closer to agnostic than atheistic.

How do you know Cabal? Because they disagree with you and Darwin?

Nope, because they repeatedly display a failure to grasp the most basic explanations of the subject. Sometimes this is wilful rejection, sure - but in many cases it really is down to a lack of ability.

If that was true then does that make all those that don't agree with me blithering idiots. It works both ways you know.

Not really. Pontificating on the Bible as you are doing is opinion, and that's all it ever can be. Science is empirical.

Please show me the error.

You accused me of thinking they were less honorable, worthy and deserving. The only statement I made was that some are less intelligent. It's a statement of fact, not an attempt to render them undeserving of anything, or whatever spin you try to put on it.

So science is your god? It is the deciding truth of all truths.

Not what I claimed. Again, stop twisting my words.

I said that there is correct and incorrect within science. Not that it decides all truth.

Oh my, I've been barking up the wrong tree. Oh wait...no I'm learning from the Tree of Life...it's the other tree that tells fibs.

Evolution is the exact opposite of Creation.

That's not an answer to the question.

I'll ask again - science has not included God as explanation for several centuries, well before evolution came along. It was all obtained despite not including God as the explanatory mechanism. So, why do you not reject all science? Why merely evolution?

If you have no problem with this for everything, then merely "leaving God out of science" is not an objection to evolution as you don't have a problem with it being done with 99% of the other scientific theories.

Depite your claims of flat earth, sun around earth, etc. being written...they are not!

According to your interpretation - not to that of a flat-earther or geocentrist.

Creation is and the theory of evolution presents a choice.

Sure. You can needlessly reject either or reconcile both.

It is what it is. They revere evolution...it is their god.

Except they don't worship it, so it's not.

Christianity is a way of life...not a religion. I don't lack confidence.

Fine - then all religions are a way of life. I'm not sure why they can't be described as that.

Then why do you believe the other things written in the Bible?

Because I choose to.

My logic isn't faulty...just some have difficulty in understanding.

Sure it's faulty. "Because atheists accept it" is not a valid criterion for dismissing anything.

Wouldn't leaving Him out of Creation be a bit like leaving gas out of your car, or sugar out of the brownies, or truth out of Scripture?

You tell me, WW - you're the one who accepts him being left out of the scientific theories that aren't evolution.

And you choose to believe this incorrect, anti-biblical theory along with the atheists?

Yes, along with gravity and atomic theory! Y'know, all the other theories that don't include God that you accept too!

Oh, but I care about you and you haven't yet recognized your fallible human theory but....I pray you do.

Spare me the patronising. Acknowledge your own chronic lack of recognition of your own fallibility.

True. One shall be judged on what one does, what one believes, what one teaches...no "I was ignorant" excuse for "it is written," and He tells us to "take heed" of man's teaching and "search the Scriptures" to find truth.

Well, it is written that God is not a liar, which is what he'd have to be for the various flavours of creationism to be true.

Ignore what Cabal? Ignore heeding the teaching of a man, of an atheist or ignore what is written by God.

Oh, you want me to ignore the teaching of a man? Then I'll ignore your fallible human interpretation of Genesis, rendered all the more fallible by your utter denial of it being an interpretation.

Thanks

Anyway, the warning was not to ignore the trend of people being pushed away from Christianity altogether (some even from within the church) due to the unwillingness of creationists to embrace reason. I'd hate to be responsible for something like that, but hey-ho. People make their beds.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I've encountered several former creationists, now atheists who have said they were more put off by the attitude of creationists to reason than to evolution itself.

Ignore this at your peril. Given your attitude, there may be a millstone in it for you.

This is so, so true- Jesus warns us about this in Matthew 18 :

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

or if you'd prefer the King James Version:

6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

It is always disturbing to me that those who resolutely try and force their narrow interpretation of the Bible on others have several traits in common:

1. they adamantly refuse to consider or respect the opinions of others, even if those opinions in no way compromise Biblical truths or other Christian's love of God and faith in Jesus Christ.

2. they insist that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only true version of the Bible, even though modern translations are

(a) based on a much more thorough and complete analysis of original Biblical manuscripts by Biblical scholars world-wide who are able to communicate using modern electronic communication, and share ideas in a far better fashion than was possible in 1611,

(b) incorporate the massive amount of additional knowledge of the Bible gained since 1611 from modern archeological discovers (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls).

(c) are free from the political biases that hamstrung the 1611 Authorized version.

(d) are written in a modern language that we are far better able to understand than the archaic language of the 17th century. Like, if old English is so much more enlightening, then why isn't it more widely used?

3. they twist and distort the comments of others, and imply, without ever really coming out and saying so, that they are somehow lesser Christians, atheists, or unsaved.

4. they refuse to incorporate the massive amount of scientific knowledge gained since 1611 into their interpretation of the Bible. So modern genetics, plate tectonics, astronomy, age dating, research into DNA, are all discarded- unless, of course, biased parts of those concepts can be selectively incorporated into their own self-serving view of the world.

For those of you who are following this discussion, and that are using it to determine whether our Christian faith has the potential to bring salvation and hope to your life- please do not get discouraged. Consider the comments and opinions of all of those here who are offering their insights, and the strength and logic of their convictions and opinions, and do not allow the extremely narrow-minded and personal interpretations of some to cause you to dismiss Christianity.

Always remember that the fundamental message of Christianity is one of love, and a belief in a few basic truths:

1. That the Universe was created by God.
(Genesis 1:1)

2. That the Bible is divinely inspired by God, and describes God’s creation, and how we are to live our lives in a manner that is pleasing to God.
(Matthew 24:14)

3. That we are all sinners and as such, according to the Bible, are destined to go to hell if we don't change our lives.
(Romans 3:23)

4. That God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and promised that if we believe in Him, repent of our sins, and ask God through the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through life according to His will, that we will have eternal life and a place with Him in Heaven.
(John 3:16)

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.

 

[Assyrian]

It is disturbing to me to have believers follow the wrong path which does compromise truth when His word on this subject is written. Perhaps what is written, which isn't my interpretation, could or should be considered narrow for....

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
.

Since the 'narrow way' is a metaphor, I don't think it can mean take everything literally.

 

[Cabal]

I thought I would cut away the repetitive underbrush to find the underlying treasure in your post. Do you see what I see?

In order to conveniently ignore several direct questions I made to you, naturally.

I see your disdain for others that aren't "scientific."

No, there's nothing wrong with being unscientific in the sense of being unaware or not understanding science. What is wrong is thinking that despite having no knowledge of science whatsoever one can still make allegations about what science is, what its theories are, or what it teaches.

Your average creationist wouldn't doesn't have any truck with those who don't goose-step along to their exact personal interpretation - so don't give science a hard time for sticking to their standards that actually work and aren't inconsistent.

As if intelligence is only theirs to claim.

Again, I never claimed that. What's that one liner you always fire off? "If you feel a connetion know it isn't me leading you there."

Perhaps your overblown reaction to my remark that some creationists lack the intelligence to understand science is a similar thing. I've not claimed half the things about the intelligence of creationists that you claim I did, so maybe this says more about you than me

Please realize that when it comes to the wisdom, knowledge and understanding we are to search for it has nothing to do with our intellectual capacity. There are many of great intelligence that are idiots for not finding the wisdom and knowledge of God and...there are many that cannot be considered overly intelligent yet they are filled with His wisdom. Which is better?

Nice trite remarks there. Still doesn't change the fact that if a creationist says that 2+2=5, no matter how much "wisdom" they claim, they're wrong. If they claim the sun goes round the earth, they're wrong. If they claim evolution is a lie, they're wrong.

I also see that in using the Bible to teach....you consider it to be a problem, to be "pontificating," to be "hiding."

When what you're saying is inconsistent, incorrect, and based on nothing more than interpretation, then it is little more than that.

In a more general sense, I was referring to the differences between theology and science. Theology at best can be a highly opinion-based subject, as that is all that is ever extricable from the Bible. Science, on the other hand, attempts to be empirical, which transcends the problems inherent to opinion-based subjects like theology.

I see that you place science above the word of the Lord for, "science is empirical."

I did no such thing. Are you even capable of responding to a point I make without twisting it?

I pointed out that science is empirical, and the Bible is not. That's all.

I see that leaving God out of science isn't a problem to you.

And I'm going to bring you right back up on the point you blatantly ignored.

It's not a problem to you either, seeing as you accept the remainder of the scientific theories that aren't based on evolution and yet were obtained exactly the same way - by not resorting to God as an explanation.

So why do you hypocritically have a go at me for leaving God out of science when it's not a problem to you for the vast majority of scientific theories?

No more dodging, please - answer the question.

And yet, we're told that He, even the invisible things of Him, are to be seen and understood....

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:​

This does not mean that God is empirically detectable, so that does not necessarily mandate him being included in science.​

 

[Cabal]

Would an "offence," which is to cause others to stumble, be.....to teach believers, the little ones, to discard His Word, His written account of His creation, and accept the word of man?

Not hardly - no-one has talked about discarding the Word, only the opinions of fallible creationists that require them to abnegate their God-given gift of reason.

Stumble? We're saving them from people like you.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Would an "offence," which is to cause others to stumble, be.....to teach believers, the little ones, to discard His Word, His written account of His creation, and accept the word of man?

Woe to that man!

That is just the point: none of us are doing any of this!

We love God more than you do, fully believing that He created the Universe and everything in it, and want others to find peace through understanding and appreciating His marvellous creation too.

But there can be only one correct interpretation of the Bible: so either your narrow and personal interpretation is correct, or one that is different and incorporates the collective thinking of many, including those specialists in the relevant sciences, is closer to God's ultimate truth.

I'll take collective wisdom and reason any day, and maintain that someone who insists on pushing their own different and rigid interpretation is acting contrary to what God would want us to do- that is, to work always to try and define the absolute truth of His Word.

Woe to that person. One day he or she will have to stand before God and explain why they were so selfish in their thinking and as a result, caused some to stumble and turn away from God.

.

 

[1whirlwind]

.