|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 1:54:40 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Because random mutations are almost invariably deleterious and add no complex informational content to the original genome.
Yes, I think that it is a very appropriate and safe assumption.
However, it MIGHT be that a mutation would confer benefit in the form of relative reproductive success and would therefore increase in a population once it appeared. Know what I mean?
Is the real issue whether God's omnipotence and change are incompatible concepts? Just wondering what you think about that -- refining or altering the terms of the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 1:57:52 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, I simply mean it shows God (His design), not that it tells us who He is.
endless_night,
just noticed your response there! thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 2:00:47 PM
|
|
|
endless_night
Posts: 67
Joined: 6/17/2008
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
I find it funny that you said "It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1" and do not realize that this also applies to Evolution.
quote:
This is not true. Scientists are always seeking new evidence. Evolutionary theory has progressed a great deal from Darwin's time by incorporating new ideas and new data, not by declaring them to be invalid by fiat.
I don't think you understand me, I mean evolutionist would deny anything that goes against evolution, not that evolution does not come up with newer theories.
quote:
And for anyone who has really studied evolution to it's core and believes it, realizes that Evolution does not lead to a possibility of an existing God
quote:
That is untrue. The theory of evolution does not discuss the existence of gods in any way.
When the idea is that everything had evolved by random chance with no purpose-except for survival, it automatically denounces any characteristics that has been placed on God, who had created the world with a purpose and have a purpose for our lives. Therefore those who are seen to believe in a God, has "created" Him to help survive.
quote:
To say that an atheists allowed for the possibility that God existed is at best a contradiction. If someone allows for the possibility that God exists they are usually referred to agnostics because atheism by definition means the "belief" that there is no God. I totally understand that it is the semantics, but without the semantics we would not understand each other.
quote:
I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.
I believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist.
I am an alochnessmonsterist.
Nevertheless, I don't consider the existence of the Loch Ness monster to be a 100% impossibility. I'm willing to allow for that possibility and look at evidence.
Similarly, I am an atheist, but I'm willing to consider the possibility of the existence of gods and look at the evidence. I am not a drmark, who admits that his reponse is a reflexive dismissal of anything he disagrees with.
To believe that someone/thing does not exists and then tell yourself that there is a possibility of that thing existing is called doubt. Therefore, you might consider yourself atheist, but not by the definition that is placed on atheism. Being an atheist does not stop you from looking at "evidence" same thing goes for a Christian. But the problem is, you don't always have to accept the interpretation of the facts.
_____________________________
The Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praises endures forever.
Psalms 111:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 2:10:55 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Some Darwinists? That's their problem?
I guess rather than being naive, I've just been the type of person who doesn't believe anything just because people or authorities says it is so. I don't know if evolution is a "fact" but I do think natural selection is very simple syllogism, the premises of which may or may not be true, but which seem likely to be and which are generally accepted by even "fundamentalist" Christians (such as heredity).
And, before I was a professing Christian, I was annoyed that many claims of scientists were glib, unscientific, and even when acknowledged as purely speculative, lacking careul deductive consideration -- in short, it was obviously ideology rather than biology. Evolution is either a trivial syllogism or it is making too much of itself. Period. I can't say it is a lie, though, therefore. Only that some scientists are liars, and I would like to tell them so.
edit: (hmm, how do i know that some scientists are liars? well, i think so. Also, I think that all people are liars at least some of the time. Don't know for sure, but... And thus, some scientists are liars qua scientists.)
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/18/2008 2:23:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 2:30:42 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 933
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
I don't think you understand me, I mean evolutionist would deny anything that goes against evolution, not that evolution does not come up with newer theories.
I don't think you understand me. If scientists had treated Darwin's theory of evolution as perfect, they never would have modified it in the face of new evidence. For example, horizontal gene transfer is (I believe) impossible in Darwin's formulation of the theory, but when evidence of it was presented, it was not denied by scientists. Your assertion is wrong.
quote:
quote:
That is untrue. The theory of evolution does not discuss the existence of gods in any way.
When the idea is that everything had evolved by random chance with no purpose-except for survival, it automatically denounces any characteristics that has been placed on God, who had created the world with a purpose and have a purpose for our lives.
The theory of electricity does not discuss the existence of gods in any way. Believers in Thor might feel that electricity denies the existence of their lightning-making god, but that's only because their particular religion conflicts with science, not because science conflicts with theism in general.
quote:
To believe that someone/thing does not exists and then tell yourself that there is a possibility of that thing existing is called doubt. Therefore, you might consider yourself atheist, but not by the definition that is placed on atheism.
The only person who could possibly meet your definition of atheist would be a dogmatic, reflexive, head-in-the-sand atheist -- a mirror image of drmark. If so, I'm happy to not be included in that definition.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 3:14:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, I think that it is a very appropriate and safe assumption. Actually, it's much more than assumption, hhhi. FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP
quote:
However, it MIGHT be that a mutation would confer benefit in the form of relative reproductive success and would therefore increase in a population once it appeared. Know what I mean? Of course, this is the classic description of sickle cell trait increasing in populations exposed to malaria. However, this has nothing to do with producing novel or more complex features in "higher evolved" descendants.
quote:
Is the real issue whether God's omnipotence and change are incompatible concepts? Just wondering what you think about that -- refining or altering the terms of the debate Hardly incompatible, hhhi! What more dramatic examples of change are there than Creation, the Curse, the Flood, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection? Surely all these dramatic changes demanded God's omnipotence!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 3:39:57 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Is the real issue whether God's omnipotence and change are incompatible concepts? Just wondering what you think about that -- refining or altering the terms of the debate Hardly incompatible, hhhi! What more dramatic examples of change are there than Creation, the Curse, the Flood, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection? Surely all these dramatic changes demanded God's omnipotence!
Yes, but what is the purpose of change and process to God? Why not do everything "all at once"? I ask this, even if the answer is obvious, because it seems to be related to the idea of evolution. That is, why wouldn't God have created an evolving or unfolding Creation rather than a static one?
See what I mean? It's basically a rhetorical question, but a fair-ish one.
I understand that it may contradict the Genesis account -- but why WOULDN'T have God created an evolving biological world?
Also, did anyone answer my question of why we don't return to Biblical ways of living, forsaking the modern, since they apparently were capable of living many times longer lives than we? I think it is part of God's commission to explore and ask questions -- and perhaps this is what has led us to a shortening of life? If it was also part of God's plan for us to "prosper," that is, to be fruitful, I don't know if was an order to "live long," but that might help us be fruitful, no?
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 6/18/2008 3:50:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 5:27:18 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes, but what is the purpose of change and process to God? Why not do everything "all at once"? Well, the simple answer is "He is God and we are not". But I also find commentary in Exodus 20:8-11 where the creation week is obviously used as a template for the human work week. So God knew in advance what would be the best chronobiology for His created humans.
quote:
That is, why wouldn't God have created an evolving or unfolding Creation rather than a static one? I don't know, we'll have to ask Him one day. I just know that He tells us it took six days to create a very good universe. Honestly though, I really don't follow your definition of a "static Creation".
quote:
I understand that it may contradict the Genesis account -- but why WOULDN'T have God created an evolving biological world? Oops, then it's wrong, isn't it! Seriously, I think we have to fall back on Isaiah 55:9 and take Him at His Word.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 5:37:57 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
But I also find commentary in Exodus 20:8-11 where the creation week is obviously used as a template for the human work week. So God knew in advance what would be the best chronobiology for His created humans.
I agree with this, but then, by extension, it makes me believe that the account of Genesis has other purposes than accounting history. Of course, history could have the purpose of showing an example to us humans, rather than mere text.
quote:
I just know that He tells us it took six days to create a very good universe. Honestly though, I really don't follow your definition of a "static Creation".
I like the reference to "And it was good."
What I meant by static though is one in which creatures don't evolve. I am separating the idea that creatures evolve as a result of changes (mutations) in genetic code and the possibility that some encodable traits confer relative reproductive advantage, thereby increasing their numbers in successive generations from the question of how old the earth is and the chronology of God's creation of all things. Why couldn't have God created animals which also evolve? Is it because it would contradict the notion that we were commissioned to name each one according to its kind -- and that God wouldn't pull a fast one on us and alter its original "kind"?!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/18/2008 6:51:35 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 341
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: endless_night
I find it funny that you said "It's a tricky one because in order to have complete faith in what you believe the Bible says you must believe that nothing contradicts what you believe the Bible says. So of course you can only select option 1" and do not realize that this also applies to Evolution.
Ahh but I didn't say that - evolution theory is basically accepted, but no evolution scientist worth his or her salt will state that they flatly reject the possibility that evolution theory (or any other theory, for that matter) is wrong.
In contrast, drmark flatly rejects any evidence which contradicts the Bible, irrespective of how well supported it might be. That's the distinction.
quote:
...
But what I find funny is this, it's not that I want things to contradict the bible to be wrong, I just happens that when something does contradict the bible, that "evidence" or thing turns out to be wrong. Funny how that works. Except that no-one who is not YEC, for example, has promoted evidence of a young Earth. So when you claim the evidence is wrong, you back the statement up with evidence which is put forth by other YECs, who make the same a priori assumption that drmark makes.
You've got admit, it's quite a coincidence that the only people who find evidence of a young Earth are YECs.
quote:
To say that an atheists allowed for the possibility that God existed is at best a contradiction. If someone allows for the possibility that God exists they are usually referred to agnostics because atheism by definition means the "belief" that there is no God. I can believe that my child is not smoking, but accept that there is a possibility that what I believe is incorrect. For atheists, it is not a *condition* of atheism that God cannot exist. There is belief that God does not exist but allowance for the possibility that God does exist. In contrast, for a Christian, it is a condition of faith that one must believe it is not possible for God to not exist. Therefore evidence to the contrary must be dismissed on the basis of that faith alone, not an objective assessment.
Simple example:
* An atheist, presented with proof that God exists, can accept this fact.
* A theist, presented with proof that God does not exist, cannot accept this fact, because it is incumbent on the theist to believe that God cannot not exist.
That's why, when theists consider evidence which contradicts their faith, they cannot assess it objectively, because they do making a a priori assumption it is incorrect, or has been incorrectly interpreted, etc.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 10:08:04 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 341
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
>>nudge>>
I'd be interested in drmark's and others' response to this, since it's relevant to the interesting thread on creationist evidence.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 10:28:42 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Simple example:
* An atheist, presented with proof that God exists, can accept this fact.
* A theist, presented with proof that God does not exist, cannot accept this fact, because it is incumbent on the theist to believe that God cannot not exist. This is not a "simple example", this is the paradigm of truth. The fool says in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1), but the Christian has the wisdom of God in his heart (1 Cor 2:16). Unbeknownst to you, Ian, you have stumbled across a great apologetic for the Christian faith and a great rebuttal against the alleged rationality of atheism!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 10:41:36 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 341
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Simple example:
* An atheist, presented with proof that God exists, can accept this fact.
* A theist, presented with proof that God does not exist, cannot accept this fact, because it is incumbent on the theist to believe that God cannot not exist. This is not a "simple example", this is the paradigm of truth. The fool says in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1), but the Christian has the wisdom of God in his heart (1 Cor 2:16). Unbeknownst to you, Ian, you have stumbled across a great apologetic for the Christian faith and a great rebuttal against the alleged rationality of atheism!
How does that enable you to objectively assess evidence?
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 10:50:03 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Because I have the truth! What's more objective than truth?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 11:16:39 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 341
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Because I have the truth! What's more objective than truth?
Indeed. What's the point in debating then? And furthermore, why bother trying to prove it with science?
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 11:22:39 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3167
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Actually, I'm not debating, I'm sharing the truth. And you have it backwards. Truth is not proved with science. Science is correctly understood through truth.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 6/22/2008 11:45:38 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 341
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Actually, I'm not debating, I'm sharing the truth. And you have it backwards. Truth is not proved with science. Science is correctly understood through truth.
quote:
Simple example:
* An atheist, presented with proof that God exists, can accept this fact.
* A theist, presented with proof that God does not exist, cannot accept this fact, because it is incumbent on the theist to believe that God cannot not exist.
I think, then, that we agree on the above.
By definition, since you know the truth, you cannot consider anything which contradicts it. You therefore cannot objectively assess any evidence. For that matter, you don't need any evidence.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 3:53:41 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, I'm not debating, I'm sharing the truth. And you have it backwards. Truth is not proved with science. Science is correctly understood through truth.
Cool.
Perhaps science ought to be understood as the task of applying doubt systematically to the natural world -- that is, if you can ask a question and you can test it, it is science.
However, doing science in faith is also nice! Perhaps people like drmark should adopt the phrase "natural philosophy" and let science be abject doubt, just to make no bones about it.
But, one could still be a believer and do science -- it woud just be asking questions "as if" revelation is not a source for knowledge. Plus, if general knowledge is systematically applied doubt, knowledge may not be such a popular word for this arena -- rather we might just prefer to think of it as hypothesis, inquiry, and theory of laws, strictly speaking.
It very well be true that the findings of science are correctly understoof through truth!! But, I think scientists ought to continue doing what they do, asking all the supposedly fallacious questions. Historically, science may have have more theological underpinnings, but I say "cede science to the scientists" -- that is, let them have the word if they have made it what it is today.
It may be that the earth is 6,000 years old -- but it doesn't seem like that to doubters. I say let the doubters do their thing. And D is therefore not science -- because it doesn not proceed out of doubt or perhaps even a spirit of inquiry! If it does lead to a spirit of inquiry... then, do science! If, not, that's fine too -- it must then be leading to a spirit of awe and worship!
"Natural philosophy" could be the alternating modes of worship and doubt-as-inquiry that secular scientists also do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 9:46:36 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrapeApe
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoldierInGodsArmy
Evolution...
quote:
is doodoo.
Hope that clears things up.
LOL, ROTFLOL, that was a good laugh.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 9:49:18 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
If you are really a Christian, stop relying on your finite human mind to explain everything. God has the answers, not you. He was there in the beginning, not you, so I suggest reading His Word and let it say what it says. Don't put words in it's mouth. And I also suggest you find a more reliable poll, because the one you used its just wrong.
I do read the scriptures. I accept the truth of scripture. I let scripture say what it says. And I am a Christian who accepts evolution----as do most Christians.
If you have a problem with evolution because of the scriptures, I suggest it is because you need some help understanding the scriptures.
So where do the scriptures say we evolved. I think it clearly states God formed us from the dust of the earth. The possibility that "most " Christians believe in evolution just may go to show the state of the church and trying to appease everyone like they are politicians. We wouldn't want to seem intolerant now would we.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 9:54:13 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And please... a round of applause for this following quote!
quote:
Rabbi (and Son of God) Jesus the Messiah stated in the 1st century:
"But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female".
So, which Rabbi will you believe, drj? The one with the feel-good message influenced by Greek philosophy? OR, the one who claimed to be eternal Truth? I know which One lives in my heart!
Right on drmark.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 9:55:22 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
Evolution is not atheism.
However, it IS atheist dogma.
quote:
Depravity has nothing to do with evolution or science generally.
Evolution has nothing to do with science.
quote:
Human alienation from God, so well described in scripture, is not contradicted in any way by evolution.
Then please explain how Genesis 2:22 is not contradicted in any way by evolution.
Jesus said in Mark 10:6 that God created man “at the beginning of creation”. Evolution has man as a latecomer. That is a clear contradiction.
Evolution may not be atheism, but it IS a lie straight out of the pits of hell intended to undermine the foundation of Christianity.
“ If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” – Psalms 113:3
right on to you too unclemonkey
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 10:00:41 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
quote:
2. many more stars are visible today than thousands of years ago
(only accounts for stars less than 10,000 light years distant)
3. God created photons "in-transit" positioned between us and the stars such that the universe appears old
(deceitful deity hypothesis, that accounts for stars more than 10,000 light years distant)
In reading the account of creation, take a minute to notice something. When He created the plants, He created them "with seed in them". He made not saplings, but grown, mature plants. He created them with the appearance of age. It's not deception at all, because if He hadn't made full grown plants, Adam and Eve and the rest of creation wouldn't have had anything to eat. If He created vegetation with the appearance of age, what would stop Him from creating everything else with the appearance of age? Is it so far fetched to think that He made the stars already visible as if the earth had been here longer?
Ok. That's a fair and acceptable theological resolution that simultaneously allows the appearance of a 14 billion year old universe and the appearance of the validity of the Theory of Evolution without being heretical in the process.
You see here is the problem, you guys don't even have your facts straight. Someone else just said the universe is 4.6 billion, not 14 billion years old. You guys should get your stories straight.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 10:43:47 PM
|
|
|
SavedByGraceMD
Posts: 666
Joined: 2/13/2008
From: the poconos
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
But let's begin with the fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Complete nonsense, gluadys, for which you have not one shred of observational evidence! The true fact is that chimps and humans were both created on day 6 by the only God of the universe. My observational evidence for this historical fact comes first-hand from the only Eyewitness to the event. Do you have something else to share as a denied fact of creation, or just more imaginary fantasies?
We have observed the human genome. We have observed the chimpanzee genome. We have compared them both. We know exactly where they are alike and where they differ. Among other things we know which ERVs they share.
We have also observed dozens of fossils which have a mixture of human and chimpanzee traits, and/or traits intermediate between chimp and human. We can also observe that the oldest of these tends to be most like primitive primates and the
with a chronological grade between them.
So there is plenty of observational evidence.
And your "evidence" is not observed evidence at all, but the testimony -- whether of a human author or God doesn't really matter-- of a storyteller.
I suggest that a story about creation in the Holy Scriptures does not constitute a contradiction to the observed evidence supporting the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.
Yes it does.
quote:
most recent most like modern humans Because it was a modern human, from what i have read, all of the so called transitional evidence has already been disproven, but evolutionists can't see past their own egos and pride.
_____________________________
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 7/2/2008 10:57:08 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD
So where do the scriptures say we evolved. I think it clearly states God formed us from the dust of the earth. The possibility that "most " Christians believe in evolution just may go to show the state of the church and trying to appease everyone like they are politicians. We wouldn't want to seem intolerant now would we.
Most Christians accept evolution because they believe God really created a real world which is itself (as scripture testifies) a revelation to all humanity, believer and unbeliever alike.
Most Christians accept evolution because they agree with Galileo's observation that the God who endowed us with sense and reason did not intend for those gifts to go unused.
Most Christians accept evolution because Jesus commanded us, among other things, to worship God with all our mind.
Most Christians accept evolution because God is not a God of confusion, but of order and they believe that order is expressed in the order of nature.
Take all of the above along with the evidence that evolution happens and has happened for as long as there has been life on earth and accepting evolution is the only stance compatible with our profession of faith in "the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth".
Only an unimaginative literalism could find contradictions between scripture and evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
