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.
That may be so, but normally when discussing Christian origins theology the term Creationist refers to those who want to place some form of rigid literalism on Gen 1 and theistic evolutionists refers to most everyone else.Just a couple of things, first of all, all Christian are creationists:
Well from my mind theistic evolution doesn't deal with naturalism, in fact I'm probably just as opposed to naturalism as you are.I hope Darwinians realise the harm they are causing. I'm sure they really believe their world view but when you want to substitute established theology with naturalistic assumptions it distracts people from the things of Christ.
The fact that God created is not in contention in Christian theological circles, as you yourself have said previously the miracle of creation is intertwined with the miracle of the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. The contention and the discussion largely takes the field on whether or not it is valid for Christians to view biological diversion as the way in which God created the diversity of life and to what extent this happened.If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept God as Creator what people supposed to think of the new birth, resurrection and God's creation at the end of the age?
It is.Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory" (again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings).
There isn't anything theologically wrong with the idea of millions and millions of years.Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say,
I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with this statement."thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination),
Yes we are saturated in materialism, unfortunately it has also seeped into Christianity and unlike where you'd naturally expect it to find its place in my mind it has squarely gotten into YEC, ever wonder why both the atheists and YEC demand two things, first of all the whole Bible must be literal-historic or you chuck the whole thing out, and secondly that Christianity and science must be at odds, these two ideas are the biggest lies that Satan is peddling at the moment and they are getting lapped up by atheist and YEC alike.We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE.
While Satan most assuredly does use Dawkins' books I'm a bit tentative of claiming him as Satan incarnate and pray that he would come to have faith in Jesus.IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)...
The battleground is whether Christ rose from the grave after three days, anything else is a distraction, creation theology whatever side you end up on can only make sense in light of the Cross. We are even told by the Apostle Paul that if there is no hope in the resurrection of Christ then we are pitiful creatures, still in sin and still unsaved.this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...
Darwin probably does overstep the bounds and delves into philosophy in the book and thereby goes outside of science but his science when taken away from the philosophy, that is there is variation over time in gene pools as influenced by the environment around is solid verifiable scientific fact.or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)
Actually your post reads like you are referring to truth.I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.
That's what is being debated... what is true. Now if you can show me jaw bones got dislocated to become ear bones which just happen works well for air-water impedance matching. What about the "little eyeball that could" story. A lot of what scientist thought was true a hundred years ago not long believe to be true. (often because the theory was too simplistic.)If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept what is true in one area, how are we supposed to get others to see the most important truth of all?
Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory"
(again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings)
Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say, "thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination), watch ONE documentary without a single reference to deep time or evolution.
We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE
IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)
.this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)
Smidlee said:Actually your post reads like you are referring to truth.
That's what is being debated... what is true. Now if you can show me jaw bones got dislocated to become ear bones which just happen works well for air-water impedance matching. What about the "little eyeball that could" story. A lot of what scientist thought was true a hundred years ago not long believe to be true. (often because the theory was too simplistic.)
Genesis=foundation, do away with the first chapter of a book and why place any utility in the rest of it?. You "win". Thanks for your time
I see Darwinism in a lot more trouble than just a question or two. Even genetic evidence does not fit Darwin's tree of life. How many failed predictions does it require before evolutionist would start to doubt their theory? As I've wrote in another thread Paley's design argument has got stronger with time while Darwin was wrong in every area.Well I think I subsequently cleared up what I meant.
It seems to me you are saying that if you can find a question which cannot be answered sufficiently then the whole theory of evolution should be thrown out?
I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.
I see Darwinism in a lot more trouble than just a question or two.
That was really smart. The way you turned what I said around. Making it look like they were of equal value. Only I never said that creation and science were at odds. You implied it in your reversal of my words making my point correct. You said "refusal to accept God as Creator". I said refusal to accept established scientific theories which I explained come from god. Thanks for proving my point.
partyanimal said:I went back and read what I posted. My words were "established scientific theories" verses "unsupported ones". In other words science verses science. You changed that to science verses God.
partyanimal said:If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept what is true in one area, how are we supposed to get others to see the most important truth of all?
mark does that kind of thing. You can see the whole formal debate I had with him here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/). Especially see my last post, which has examples.
Faith in God and in the events of salvation history must necessarily begin with a belief in God's role as Creator, says Benedict XVIPapias knows this, he just ignores it.
How are you supposed to get others to see 'the most important truth of all' when you deny God as Creator and heap constant scorn on those who affirm it?
No necessary true. The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1 - YouTubeRegardless of whether or not Smidlee, who is unfamiliar with the evidence, finds "Darwinism in a lot more trouble than a question or two", is pretty irrelvant to anything. If, on the other hand, anyone really does have solid evidence against common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection, all they have to do is present it to get fame, fortune, tenure, and their own Nobel prize.
Papias
I assume none of these guys in this video are creationist. Venter seems to surprises others with his comment ""The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."Smidlee wrote:
.......because you are listening to creationist sources. The idea that there is any significant doubt over common descent or the theory of evolution by natural selection is one of the longest running falsehoods peddled by creationists.
Papias
No necessary true. The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1 - YouTube
I doubt these guys are not creationist nor even theist but they made a point that others have made that scientist often hold on to their theories dogmatically.
I assume none of these guys in this video are creationist. Venter seems to surprises others with his comment ""The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."
I watch both of these videos a while back so I don't just listen to creationist (I have no problem listen to them) but the evolutionist as well.
I didn't say I agree with them on their steady state theory yet I did watch that video. I added " I doubt" and forgot to remove "not". I corrected it above. I wasn't sure but I thought these were atheist.You seem to not understand what they are proposing instead, steady state theory denies the biblical affirmation that there is a beginning to creation. So you're really fine with that denial?
I didn't say I agree with them on their steady state theory yet I did watch that video. I added " I doubt" and forgot to remove "not". I corrected it above. I wasn't sure but I thought these were atheist.
Are they right about these red shifts?
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?