What do you think........

[CaptainMercy]

Why do evolutionist have so much trouble accepting the bible as God's true word? They deny that the Genesis account of creation in accurate. They attempt to convince everyone that the world is billions of years old. I want to know if you evolutionist really believe God is from everlasting to everlasting. You take a man made machine and will accept its findings as gospel but fail to hear God's word. Shouldn't you, if you claim to be Christian, take His word above all others? Was Paul lying when he said,

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Before you give answer, please read the book of Romans!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Before you give answer, please read the book of Romans!

Gosh, I never thought to read the Bible, gee thanks for setting me straight.

 

[shernren]

Oh yeah! The BIBLE! How could I have forgotten to read the Bible!

But sarcasm aside I think you simply haven't dealt with enough creationists. We're bombarded everyday with people telling us that evolution nullifies the word of God and if we really didn't have answers to that then we'd all be either honest atheistic evolutionists or dishonest (to ourselves) Christian evolutionists. Thank God it's possible to be an honest Christian evolutionist. And before you write us off as Bible-burners I hope you'll take a little time to examine just how we reach honest, Bible-compatible evolution and decide for yourself.

It's ironic for you to quote Romans 1:25 because the passage speaks of pagans who didn't have the testimony of Scripture but instead rejected the testimony of Creation to worship the creature instead of the Creator. Sometimes modern creationist "science" does that too; the testimony it reads from Creation is that of a God who messed up half the fundamental constants in the universe just to cover the tracks of a young creation.

 

[United]

Why do evolutionist have so much trouble accepting the bible as God's true word? They deny that the Genesis account of creation in accurate. They attempt to convince everyone that the world is billions of years old. I want to know if you evolutionist really believe God is from everlasting to everlasting. You take a man made machine and will accept its findings as gospel but fail to hear God's word. Shouldn't you, if you claim to be Christian, take His word above all others? Was Paul lying when he said,

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Before you give answer, please read the book of Romans!

Hi there Blessedvalley,

You obviously have a strong passion for God's word - which is a great thing! But first consider if one really can believe in evolution & also in the bible. I am happy to work through it if you wish. Just give me a list of your issues.

 

[CaptainMercy]

Oh yeah! The BIBLE! How could I have forgotten to read the Bible!

But sarcasm aside I think you simply haven't dealt with enough creationists. We're bombarded everyday with people telling us that evolution nullifies the word of God and if we really didn't have answers to that then we'd all be either honest atheistic evolutionists or dishonest (to ourselves) Christian evolutionists. Thank God it's possible to be an honest Christian evolutionist. And before you write us off as Bible-burners I hope you'll take a little time to examine just how we reach honest, Bible-compatible evolution and decide for yourself.

Why is it that when I make a post like such, you get to thinking I am being sarcastic? When you make a post and you ask someone to read something before they post, do you want them to come back at you with a remark like that? My request was a simple one and you did not have to reply if you did not want to honor that request. If you make a request in one of your threads, then I would honor it if I wanted to post.

It's ironic for you to quote Romans 1:25 because the passage speaks of pagans who didn't have the testimony of Scripture but instead rejected the testimony of Creation to worship the creature instead of the Creator. Sometimes modern creationist "science" does that too; the testimony it reads from Creation is that of a God who messed up half the fundamental constants in the universe just to cover the tracks of a young creation.

Why would that be Ironic when in your own words, "Sometimes modern creationist 'science' does that too," you admit that this scripture would fit in some instances at least. The reason I quote that is for that very reason, some in the field of science leave no room for God in creation at all.

 

[KerrMetric]

The reason I quote that is for that very reason, some in the field of science leave no room for God in creation at all.

No, what science has no room for are people who lie about science supposedly for God.

 

[CaptainMercy]

Hi there Blessedvalley,

You obviously have a strong passion for God's word - which is a great thing! But first consider if one really can believe in evolution & also in the bible. I am happy to work through it if you wish. Just give me a list of your issues.

Carbon Testing for one. Also, I have trouble with the dating of fossils. Missing link theory. Lastly, in my studies on Charles Darwin's theory and the man himself, I came across a guote (I will research it again to find the quote for you, but I have misplaced the source for now) of Darwin saying before he died that he discounts his theory of evolution which he claimed was to be a joke on one of his colleages.

1. Carbon Testing has been found to be false on occasions.

2. Dating of rocks and fossils seems to far fetched to be for real. How can man come up with something that has to be control by man made instructions and say that this is it. A program is only as good as its source of information which in this case is the programmer. So who is to say the programmer has the right outpu data to handle the input. I could program software that according to the program will always make 2 + 2 = 5. Does that make the program right?

3. Has aby one ever really found the missing link. Yet the Bible has been proven accurate on numerous occasions by archeologist (which is a science).

4. Will try to find this article for you.

 

[KerrMetric]

Carbon Testing for one. Also, I have trouble with the dating of fossils. Missing link theory. Lastly, in my studies on Charles Darwins theory and the man himself, I cam across a guote (I will research it again to find the quote for you, but I have misplaced the source for now) of Darwin saying before he died that he discounts his theory of evolution which claimed was to be ajoke on one of his colleages.

1. Carbon Testing has been found to be false on occasions.

2. Dating of rocks and fossils seems to far fetched to be for real. How can man come up with something that has to be control by man made instructions and say that this is it. A program is only as good as its source of information which in this case is the programmer. So who is to say the programmer has the right outpu data to handle the input. I could program software that according to the program will always make 2 + 2 = 5. Does that make the program right?

3. Has aby one ever really found the missing link. Yet the Bible has been proven accurate on numerous occasions by archeologist (which is a science).

4. Will try to find this article for you.

I can see that discussing this would be futile.

 

[CaptainMercy]

I can see that discussing this would be futile.

Why? Because I have legitiment questions? Or are you just not versed enough in you theory to discuss them. Either way, if I have offended you, I apologize.
I do not intend to cause discord or discouragement to anyone. I am just curious and am learning a lot even though I am nearly 51. Your replies are an education for all of us. I by no means claim to have all the answers. Isn't that why we have forums so we can discuss these issues? Please respond!

 

[KerrMetric]

Why? Because I have legitiment questions? Or are you just not versed enough in you theory to discuss them. Either way, if I have offended you, I apologize.
I do not intend to cause discord or discouragement to anyone. I am just curious and am learning a lot even though I am nearly 51. Your replies are an education for all of us. I by no means claim to have all the answers. Isn't that why we have forums so we can discuss these issues? Please respond!

Your point 2) was so bizarre. You basically imply that dating is somehow rigged in a conspiratorial manner. Anyone who truly puts this forward seems to me to be so entrenched in their denial as to render any discussion moot.

 

[gluadys]

Carbon Testing for one.

Most likely you have incomplete information about carbon testing. Scientists are aware of the conditions which need to be avoided in order to get a reliable date from carbon testing. Do you know the conditions under which carbon testing will give inaccurate results?

Also, I have trouble with the dating of fossils.

Which type of dating? There are several different procedures. Do you have trouble with all of them or just some? Which ones?

Missing link theory.

You will have to enlighten me on this one. Never heard of it in science.

Lastly, in my studies on Charles Darwin's theory and the man himself, I came across a guote (I will research it again to find the quote for you, but I have misplaced the source for now) of Darwin saying before he died that he discounts his theory of evolution which he claimed was to be a joke on one of his colleages.

That is the Lady Hope creationist myth. She claimed Darwin recanted in her hearing on his death bed, but according to his family, she hadn't even visited their home in the last six months of his life. Nevertheless the story keeps cropping up in creationist literature.

1. Carbon Testing has been found to be false on occasions.

Mostly in circumstances where it was expected to be false. Carbon testing has to be tested itself in order to find out when it is and is not reliable. e.g. carbon testing was found (as expected) to be unreliable when used on shellfish and the predators of shell-fish, because they get their carbon from marine instead of atmospheric sources.

2. Dating of rocks and fossils seems to far fetched to be for real.

Please define "far-fetched".

3. Has aby one ever really found the missing link.

Lots of transitional fossils have been found. You will have to define "missing link". Is it one specific fossil or can any transitional be the missing link?

 

[Mikecpking]

Carbon Testing for one. Also, I have trouble with the dating of fossils. Missing link theory. Lastly, in my studies on Charles Darwin's theory and the man himself, I came across a guote (I will research it again to find the quote for you, but I have misplaced the source for now) of Darwin saying before he died that he discounts his theory of evolution which he claimed was to be a joke on one of his colleages.

1. Carbon Testing has been found to be false on occasions.

2. Dating of rocks and fossils seems to far fetched to be for real. How can man come up with something that has to be control by man made instructions and say that this is it. A program is only as good as its source of information which in this case is the programmer. So who is to say the programmer has the right outpu data to handle the input. I could program software that according to the program will always make 2 + 2 = 5. Does that make the program right?

3. Has aby one ever really found the missing link. Yet the Bible has been proven accurate on numerous occasions by archeologist (which is a science).

4. Will try to find this article for you.

Hi Blessedvalley,
1 Carbon dating is not used for dating fossils, its only used for dating non fossilised animal and plant matter for approx 50,000 years or younger. Fossil dating is done my radiometric methods which are based on decay rates of 'heavier' elemnets like uranium etc. There are also non radio active dating methods like succession, correlation of fossil groups in one type of rock to another etc. A good geology course is a grweat way to find out. With 'missing links' there are plenty that can be observed in the field. You only have to look at the Jurassic sequence exposed at Lyme Regis, England to see a constantly changing of Ammonite species in succession. The higher up the sequence one goes, the species are constantly changing.
The missing link problem is due to the fact a fossilisation event is quite rare. For example, upon death, the animal or plant must be buried and protected from decay and weathering to fossilisation takes place. Under extreme pressure, the organic material is removed leaving the imprint of the organism in the rock.
Sea floor spreading has been accurately measured at about the same speed as one's fingernails grow. You only have to look at the jigsaw fir og the continents and see thousands of miles of ocean= millions of years of spreading. I could go on..
There is also common sense; if the Earth is older than taking a literal view of Genesis chapter 1, what can be said about it? Its God's truth, so whats it about? For me and plus a lot of bible believing theologians, scientists sets up the truth that God di create the Earth, all thats in it and the Universe. Man has a special part in the creation as the pinnacle of his work and that we have a special relationship to God. It also sets the Sabbath as special part of the week and its the climax of creation. It is not meant to be a science book, its more a poem to explain 'why' and not 'how'

 

[shernren]

No, blessedvalley, I was referring to my little use of sarcasm to ensure that it wasn't misconstrued. Yes, I have read and will continue to read those verses, and I find no conflict between them and a Christian understanding of evolution.

 

[United]

Carbon Testing for one. Also, I have trouble with the dating of fossils. Missing link theory. Lastly, in my studies on Charles Darwin's theory and the man himself, I came across a guote (I will research it again to find the quote for you, but I have misplaced the source for now) of Darwin saying before he died that he discounts his theory of evolution which he claimed was to be a joke on one of his colleages.

1. Carbon Testing has been found to be false on occasions.

2. Dating of rocks and fossils seems to far fetched to be for real. How can man come up with something that has to be control by man made instructions and say that this is it. A program is only as good as its source of information which in this case is the programmer. So who is to say the programmer has the right outpu data to handle the input. I could program software that according to the program will always make 2 + 2 = 5. Does that make the program right?

3. Has aby one ever really found the missing link. Yet the Bible has been proven accurate on numerous occasions by archeologist (which is a science).

4. Will try to find this article for you.

Hi there Blessedvalley,

Thanks for your response. As the other posts have suggested, there are many different tests which show the earth is very old. Take a look at both sides of the arguement:
-The most popular Young Earth Creation (YEC) website is http://www.answersingenesis.org
-A popular Old earth creation (OEC) website is http://www.newcreationism.org/ & a detailed online book is http://answers.org/newlook/NEWLOOK.HTM#New
-In detail information on evolution & scientific age tests can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/
My personal belief is that the answers in genesis website does not provide a balanced viewpoint & should always be read in conjunction with other sites - although others may disagree.

Fossils representing "Transitional species" have been found, but not to the degree that one would expect (at least in my opinion). This is one issue I have with evolution - the other is the ability of it's proposed mechanism (natural selection) to acheive the level of complexity found in nature. However, I have come to realise that we cannot use these issues to discredit theistic evolution (TE). If God chose to use evolution as his method of creation (i.e. a "God guided" evolution), then neither of these issues are really relevant. This is what I have found anyway.

Please feel free to ask any other issues you have with evolution.

PS - Happy Birthday!