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.
jewel77 said:I beleive many evolutionary scientists put forward their so-called "proof" of evolution, simply because they want to believe in natural causes, because the other alternative is an intelligent Devine Creator, something they dont want to contemplate, because they would then have to acknowledge God's soveriegnty and laws concerning their own lives.
This is taken from a book by Grant R. Jefferey after analysing the so-called "missing links".
The Conclusion from Fossil Records.
The final result of this analysis of these famous ape-man "missing links" is that the evidence supporting human evolution simply does not exist. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitiional form between ape-like ancestors and men, despite their constant search during the last 150 years. The museums and universities have more than 100 million fossils collected from every area on Earth during the last century and a half. The truth is this : There is no fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of the gradual development of life from simple to complex forms, including humans.
jewel77 said:I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.
"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."
That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.
What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist. I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.
I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical and certainly stretches the imagination.
Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..
jewel77 said:Natuaral without God
jewel77 said:I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.
"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."
That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.
What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist. I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.
I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical and certainly stretches the imagination. Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..
From what I read, they do no such thing. However, I am cogently aware of the fact that many creationist organizations lie in order to make their standpoint appear stronger than it is, and their opponent's weaker.jewel77 said:I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.
Who is Jeffrey Grant? The last author you talked about was Grant R. Jeffrey. I'm going to assume this is the same financial advisor with no scientific training you were talking about earlier."What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."
That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.
Henry M. Morris was a hydraulic engineer. He may have been considered a scientist in the loosest definition of the word but he was certainly not qualified to judge the validity of claims made outside his field. Evolution has nothing to do with hydraulic engineering. Henry M. Morris was as guilty of spreading false information as Grant R. Jeffrey is.What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist.
And I have read many things about creationists and the sketchy-at-best tactics they employ in order to win the ignorant over to their side. What they present is not honest information. If you are interested in learning we are here to give you honest information. If you are not interested in learning then there is little we can do for you.I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.
What, exactly, is illogical about it?I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical
Belief in a literal 6-day creation stretches my imagination as well, but I don't use that as an argument against it. I work to find arguments that are not based on fallacy.and certainly stretches the imagination.
No it doesn't. In fact, I've got one very important question for you: Why do we observe, consistently, the earth to be many orders of magnitude older than the 6,000 years young-earth creationists adhere to?Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..
jewel77 said:So, The Lady Kate, you really dont believe most evolutionist scientists dont want to acknowledge God for the reasons I give?
Strange, I thought that to be one of the main reasons why people wont come to God that they dont want to change, they want to live their life without any restrictions. Just shows how wrong a person can be, hey Kate?
And no, what Grant Jeffrey says is not a lot of rhetorical huffing and puffing, but no facts. Thats your opinion. He has stated the facts in his book and as I metioned, Henry Morris said similar things in his book, Im sure it would be well documented else where. Why dont you do yourself a favor and find it??
And by the way Henry M . Morris, Ph.D, is a creationist scientist and was the Director of the Institute for Creation Research, so Dannager, I think you have the wrong Henry Morris.
Yes, I do believe they use dubious methods to make their theories fit, its what I ve read by reputable Christians - and why shouldnt I believe well respected born again Christians?? (The proof, Kate, is documented in their books READ THEM )
And yes, I have gotten my logic from these authors and others. I am entitled to my opinin. Have you considered that you could be wrong? Who are you to say that iam wrong.
Athene, I resent your insinuation that Im lying about having read the methods used by evolutionists. In fact I resent the whole, offensive, superior manner in which you and The Lady Kate have shown in this debate. Also, I dont know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???
Athene said:This is anti-intellectualism at it's worst..
So, The Lady Kate, you really don’t believe most evolutionist scientists don’t want to acknowledge God for the reasons I give? Strange, I thought that to be one of the main reasons why people wont come to God – that they don’t want to change, they want to live their life without any restrictions. Just shows how wrong a person can be, hey Kate?
jewel77 said:. . .
Also, I dont know how you can not believe in creationism and be a Christian???[/SIZE][/FONT]
It's simple, I dont have any problem believing the Genesis record. Quite frankly i'm amazed at christians who dont believe the whole bible. If you can only believe parts of the bible, then how can you know for sure any of it is true??
I really dont have any time for you and your sarcasim.The Lady Kate said:[/SIZE][/FONT]
It's going to take more than a conspiracy theory to convince me.
Facts would help.
Well, it's good that you acknowledge that at least some of your assumptions are mistaken.
You mean why don't I do your work for you? You're the one holding their claims up as gospel... it's your job to give me a reason to agree.
Nope, it's the same guy. A hydraulic engineer.
He's certainly the man to call if we get a stopped-up toilet, but not exactly the go-to guy for evolutionary biology.
I've read them... and I've read the numerous refutations of them.
Of course I might be wrong... and, given a credible set of facts, I'll gladly and humbly change my opinions to reflect them.
You have not provided any facts, nor offered up the slightest incentive to search for anything. There's nothing you've posted that hasn't already been said and refuted before.
Please try to understand that you are by no means the first person to show up here and run off the usual misinformation and anti-intellectual conspiracy rhetoric.
Your tone from the beginning was confrontational, and so you were confronted. The problem seems to be that you have not yet provided any substance to your arguments, but rather, insist that we find it for you.
What you have provided, frankly... is neither new nor all that impressive.
It would probably be best at this point to realize that the majority of people on this board are, most likely, more well-versed in what evolutionary theory actually is and is not than you are, and that it might be best, as a newcomer, to lurk a while longer, read a few posts, and follow a few links, before stepping up to the plate.
As a fellow Christian, I can only say that this approach will save you embarassment in the future.
The fact that Creationism is not an essential doctrine to Christianity (although Creation itself is...) that's something you're going to have to work out yourself.
jewel77 said:It's simple, I dont have any problem believing the Genesis record. Quite frankly i'm amazed at christians who dont believe the whole bible. If you can only believe parts of the bible, then how can you know for sure any of it is true??
Not true. There is no evidence in favour of a young earth, and a pile of evidence in favour of an old earth. It comes down to evidence.jewel77 said:We probably wont determine who has the better interpretation. Much of what we believe comes down to faith
jewel77 said:We probably wont determine who has the better interpretation. Much of what we believe comes down to faith
You come across as having a very high opinion of yourself and I am NOT embarassed.The Lady Kate said:[/SIZE][/FONT]
It's going to take more than a conspiracy theory to convince me.
Facts would help.
Well, it's good that you acknowledge that at least some of your assumptions are mistaken.
You mean why don't I do your work for you? You're the one holding their claims up as gospel... it's your job to give me a reason to agree.
Nope, it's the same guy. A hydraulic engineer.
He's certainly the man to call if we get a stopped-up toilet, but not exactly the go-to guy for evolutionary biology.
I've read them... and I've read the numerous refutations of them.
Of course I might be wrong... and, given a credible set of facts, I'll gladly and humbly change my opinions to reflect them.
You have not provided any facts, nor offered up the slightest incentive to search for anything. There's nothing you've posted that hasn't already been said and refuted before.
Please try to understand that you are by no means the first person to show up here and run off the usual misinformation and anti-intellectual conspiracy rhetoric.
Your tone from the beginning was confrontational, and so you were confronted. The problem seems to be that you have not yet provided any substance to your arguments, but rather, insist that we find it for you.
What you have provided, frankly... is neither new nor all that impressive.
It would probably be best at this point to realize that the majority of people on this board are, most likely, more well-versed in what evolutionary theory actually is and is not than you are, and that it might be best, as a newcomer, to lurk a while longer, read a few posts, and follow a few links, before stepping up to the plate.
As a fellow Christian, I can only say that this approach will save you embarassment in the future.
The fact that Creationism is not an essential doctrine to Christianity (although Creation itself is...) that's something you're going to have to work out yourself.
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?