Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
You don't seem to understand what science is or how it is conducted (based on the link you provided), so I thought I'd provide some information for your enlightenment.

Typically to be considered science your work should be published in peer-reviewed journals. The typical format is:

Introduction: motivate the study, why is it important, what hypotheses are you testing, etc.
Methods: how are you going to test the hypotheses
Results : report what you found
Discussion: how do your findings relate to the current state of knowlege in your field.

How it works is you do the work, write the paper, pick a journal and send it in, the editor sends it out to a few reviewers, they review the paper and say except it as is (almost never), accept it with modifications, that is, you need to address certain concerns (usually the response if you're doing good science), or reject it (either it's irrelevant or there are fundamental flaws in the study design). You make the modifications and send it back, it gets published.

At this point in time there are so many questions and areas of research that anyone operating with a creationist paradigm rather than a natural selection paradigm should have no problem coming up with hypotheses and testing them. I've come up with some just in my casual readings of creationist thought. What I don't see being done is anybody tackling specific "problems".

The modus operandi of the Creationists seems to be take a fact from here and one from there (often misrepresented even!), usually throw in an out of context quote from an evolutionist to show that even they don't really believe this stuff and say you see "evolutionists" are wrong, it must be God. They then write books (or web pages) which are not peer-reviewed at all, they are simply evaluated by a publisher on the merit of whether they will sell or not. There's no reason that creationism couldn't be legit, and if it is, there is no reason that scientific methodology couldn't be used to test the predictions that arise from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Dwayne

I have a fine understanding of science since I graduated as a Biology major at UCLA.

The problem we are having is that I don't accept the premises of evolutionary science, which apparently you do.

Since I don't accept the premises, I don't accept the outcomes.

You however do accept the premises, therefore do accept the outcomes.

I'll give you an example. In any dating method, there are assumptions. Forget the plus or minus, we are talking about the whole system. Here are the assumptions.

You assume you knew the exact composition of the thing being tested at it's origin.

You know that nothing washed or changed it's composition over the entire time.

You assume that in the decay rate that you have measured, what over a hundred years, is that same over the entire period in age that you believe the item is.

I know I don't know anything about science, but those are pretty big assumptions.

When people accept these dates and all the inferences made on them about our universe, life and natural history. It is my belief that they are making way more assumptions than I am and are trusting something that is in my opinion not very sound.

Let me ask you this. How old is the earth to you? Why? How old is mankind or the first life? How did you get to that belief?

You will undoubtly find you got there because you accepted the assumptions. Maybe now that you know them, you will revisit the issue and perhaps think that perhaps it's wrong.
 

·
Seeking shades of grey
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
Flip Flash said:
The problem we are having is that I don't accept the premises of evolutionary science, which apparently you do. Since I don't accept the premises, I don't accept the outcomes.
You are basically saying you (and the creationists who publish non-peer reviewed books and web pages) don't accept the scientific method. If there is such a volume of evidence that evolution is flawed, why don't we see any serious scholarly publication of it? I'm not a PhD, but I do browse scientific journals and frequently see some pretty bold assertions, so it isn't like the academic community is suppressing the creationist viewpoint in journals.

Can't resist... I'll answer the question myself. The reason is because most creationists are interested in the low lying fruit of the lay-person who doesn't read academic journals. It takes a *lot* of effort to be taken seriously by a journal with a reputation, but it is much easier to make a web site, write a book (with a joe-blow publisher) or make a video series. From what I've seen, the advocates of creationism are trying for mind share among the general populace instead of addressing the science head on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
You have a problem

Maybe we have a problem.

You see, the accepted defination of science does not allow for outcomes which are faith based.

Meaning, once you start talking about evolution not being true, you get put into a category of people that are not scientist, even if you are and all you are talking about is science.

The book Darwin on Trial directly addresses this issue and how the standard defination of science has been structured so that all non-evolution (materialism) ideas are deemed not science.

You should read the book,m as it speaks to it much better than I could. I think you don't understand the magnitude and power of the people who make the "acceptable or not" rules.

You are right that some people only want to talk science, and I believe that includes creation people, but the problem is any non-materialistic based first cause is deemed not science. I think you can understand that.

Here's a link to the book and by the way, the guy Phillip Johnson is a Berkeley professor and one with outstanding references.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830813241/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref=nosim/102-4351138-0368104
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
"I'll give you an example. In any dating method, there are assumptions. Forget the plus or minus, we are talking about the whole system. Here are the assumptions.

You assume you knew the exact composition of the thing being tested at it's origin.

You know that nothing washed or changed it's composition over the entire time.

You assume that in the decay rate that you have measured, what over a hundred years, is that same over the entire period in age that you believe the item is.

I know I don't know anything about science, but those are pretty big assumptions."

So communicate with a physicist who actually works in this area to find out how valid these assumptions are or are not. I have faith in science that if these assumptions lead to incorrect dates than researchers will eventually reveal these incongruencies and the methods will be revised. Personally I don't understand why creationists must be young-earthers if you accept that god can create species at will, what's it matter if he's been doing it for the last 3.5 billion years or the last 5000?

How old is the earth to you? Why?
I would say 5 billion years or so because that's the number that comes from science and science works.

How old is mankind or the first life?
Not sure about the estimates, 3.5 billion or is it 4.5 billion years? Based on the fact that inorganic and organic carbon have different chemical compositions and at some point in the geological record you start seeing organic carbon (a good bit before any fossils are ever found!)

How do you define mankind? You mean people that look like us and engaged in similar symbolic communication and human-like behavior. Maybe 100k years or so, because that's when you start seeing anatomically modern humans and getting archeological evidence of people engaging in human-like behavior.

How did you get to that belief? I've read some of the scientific literature and I trust in the methodology of science. I was actually an anthropology major as an undergrad and did 2 years of masters work in the field of biological anthropology.

You will undoubtly find you got there because you accepted the assumptions. Maybe now that you know them, you will revisit the issue and perhaps think that perhaps it's wrong.[/QUOTE]

My fundamental assumption is that science works, it has put men on the moon, split the atom, made tremendous advances in medicine and genetics, etc., etc. (cloned animals even). I refuse to believe that when you apply the basic methodology of science to geological or biological history that it ceases to work because it might offend the sensibilities of some people who think that a 2000+ year old theological treatise reveals TRUTHs about the universe that trump science! If you wish to disprove certain facts like the age of the earth etc. get on with it via science and quit preaching to the choir. If you think certain things are untestable and unknowable via the methods of science present a cogent arguement as to why that is the case, but then don't state some alternative theory as fact that is equally unscientific and expect anyone thinking critically to accept it.

So you think the methodology that leads to the dating of geological dating is based on flawed assumptions which presumably lead to wrong "old" dates. Maybe just the options how do you know the assumptions don't underestimate the age of the earth, etc.? So what are the correct dates? Or are you saying we can't possibly determine the dates? If that's the case is there any reason to believe the earth is young as opposed to old? If not, lets just leave it an open question until better evidence comes along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
What is science, and who gets to say, here's an article.

Raymond Bohlin, Ph.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin on Trial is the title of a book on evolution that has ruffled the feathers of the secular scientific community. Though a Christian, author Philip Johnson critiques evolutionary theory from a secular standpoint as he examines the philosophical games many scientists play to protect their evolutionary ideology.
Evolution as Fact and Theory
Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, attacks head-on the often-heard statement that evolution is both a fact and a theory, an evolutionary dogma that has been a major source of confusion for a long time. Evolution is a fact, Darwinists say, in that they know that evolution has occurred. It is a theory in that they are far from understanding the mechanisms by which evolution has occurred. In the eloquent words of evolutionist Stephen J. Gould,

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas which explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. (Evolution as Fact and Theory)
There are numerous problems with this explanation. First, if evolution is a fact, then evolution is equivalent to data. This hardly seems appropriate. Second, the comparison of evolution to gravity is misleading. We can go into any apple orchard and observe apples falling from trees. But where do we go to observe humans evolving from apelike ancestors? Apples falling from trees fits into the category of science we can term operations science which utilizes data that are repeatable and observable at any time. Humans evolving from apelike ancestors, however, would fall under the category of origins science. Origins science involves the study of historical events that occur just once and are not repeatable. We can only assemble what evidence we have and construct a plausible scenario, much like the forensic scientist Quincy did in the old television show. The so-called facts of human evolution, by Gould's own definition, are the fossils and the rock layers they are found in. That humans evolved from apelike ancestors is a theory that attempts to explain and interpret these facts.

Later in the same article Gould states the real definition of fact under which evolution fits. He begins by saying that fact does not necessarily mean absolute certainty. Then he says, "In science, fact' can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" In other words, evolution is a fact because a majority of scientists say so, and you are "perverse" if you do not agree. We quickly begin to see that evolution holds a privileged place in the scientific community, which will go to extraordinary lengths to preserve that status.

A Theory in Crisis
Johnson's book, although the most recent, is not the first to question evolution's status as fact. Michael Denton, an agnostic medical researcher from Australia, caused quite a storm with his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's point is that orthodox Darwinism has such a stranglehold on the biological sciences that contradictory evidences from fields such as paleontology, developmental biology, molecular biology, and taxonomy are passed off as intramural squabbles about the process of evolution. The "fact" of evolution is never really in question.
Like Johnson, Denton points out that Darwinism is not a fact. It is a mechanistic theory that is still without a mechanism. While moths and fruit flies do respond to environmental stimuli, our observations of this process have been unable to shed any light on the means by which we have come to have horses and woodpeckers and wasps. The origin of complex adaptations has remained a mystery. The fossil record is pockmarked with gaps in the most embarrassing places. Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms between major groups of organisms, yet the few transitions that are suggested are surrounded in controversy.

Another "fact" that fails to withstand Denton's scrutiny is the assumption that similar biological structures owe their similarity to a common ancestry. Homology, which studies these similarities, assumes for example that the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are similar in structure because they evolved from the same source. Denton reveals, however, that these same classes of vertebrates go through remarkably different stages of early embryological development. This was certainly not a prediction of Darwinian evolution.

Even more importantly, Denton reports that comparison of the sequences of proteins from different organisms actually supports the pre-Darwin system of classification, which was based on creationist principles.

Also, the many chemical evolution scenarios are caught in numerous intractable dilemmas that offer little hope of resolution (see Scientific American, Feb. 1991).

Rules of Science and Evolution
Another issue that Philip Johnson treats in his book is the fact that the rules of science tend to be stated and followed differently depending on whether you are talking about evolution or creation. Professor Johnson refers specifically to Judge William Overton's decision striking down the Arkansas Creation/Evolution Balanced Treatment law. In his written decision, which was reprinted in its entirety in the prestigious journal Science, Judge Overton reiterated five essential characteristics of science that were given by opponents of the bill during the trial. Science, in the judge's opinion, must be
Guided by natural law
Explanatory by reference to natural law
Testable against the empirical world
Tentative in its conclusions--that is, not necessarily the final word
Falsifiable
Judge Overton decided that creation- science does not meet these criteria since it appeals to the supernatural and is therefore not testable, falsifiable, or explanatory by reference to natural law. Johnson points out that philosophers of science have been very critical of the definitions of science given in the decision and have suggested that the expert witnesses provided by the ACLU attorneys got away with a philosophical snow job. Critics have pointed out that scientists are not the least bit tentative about their basic commitments, especially about their commitment to evolution. From my own experience, all one has to do is attend any scientific meeting to see that some scientists are anything but tentative about their ideas. Also, scientists study the effects of phenomena (such as gravity) that they cannot explain by natural law. Finally, critics have noted that creation-science, as proposed by the Arkansas law, does make empirical claims (such as a young earth, worldwide flood, special creation). Mainstream science has said these claims are demonstrably false, which raises the interesting question, How can creation-science be both unfalsifiable and demonstrably false at the same time?

Johnson clearly reveals that what is really being protected by these rules of science is not necessarily evolution, but the philosophical doctrine known as naturalism. According to Johnson, "Naturalism assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from the outside."

While this doctrine does not deny the existence of God, it certainly makes Him irrelevant. Science, therefore, becomes our only reliable path to knowledge. The issue as Johnson states it, is


...Whether this philosophical viewpoint is merely an understandable professional prejudice or whether it is the objectively valid way of understanding the world. That is the real issue behind the push to make naturalistic evolution a fundamental tenet of society, to which everyone must be converted.

The consequence of this kind of thinking is that evolution is made the basis of ethical and religious statements, which is precisely what most evolutionists find repulsive about creation.

Darwinist Religion
A frequent refrain from evolutionists is that the evolution/creation debate is actually a collision between science and religion. If creationists would just realize their view is inherently religious and that evolution is the scientific view, then there would be little to disagree about. Evolution belongs in the science classrooms and creation belongs only in the philosophy and religion classrooms. What gets left behind in this discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, are the very firm religious implications of atheistic naturalism with evolution as its foundation.
We only need to look at a few sources to see the religious nature of evolution. The first source is the blatantly religious statements of certain evolutionists themselves. Philip Johnson quotes the evolutionist William Provine as stating quite categorically that

Modern science, i.e., evolution, implies that there is no purpose, gods, or design in nature.
There are no absolute moral or ethical laws.
Heredity and environment determine all that man is.
When we die, we die, and that is all there is.
Evolution cannot produce a being that is truly free to make choices.
Statements such as these make it quite clear: the belief that science and religion are different spheres of knowledge is complete nonsense.
A second source that establishes the religious nature of evolution is the attacks of evolutionists on the God of the Bible using evolutionary principles. In his chapter on natural selection, professor Johnson provides an example from evolutionist Douglas Futuyma. Futuyma states that a Creator would never create a bird such as the peacock, whose six feet of bulky feathers make it easy prey for leopards. (Johnson turns the tables, however, by asking why natural selection would favor a peahen that lusts after males with life-threatening decorations.) It has always amazed me that people who claim that there is no God sure seem to have an intimate knowledge of what He would be like if He did exist. At any rate, if evolution can be used to discredit certain notions about the character of God, then evolution is indeed making religious statements.

A third indication of the religious nature of evolution is the knee-jerk reaction of the evolutionary establishment against any statement that even hints that evolution is a tentative theory. In 1984, a group of scientists who are Christians but who do not identify themselves with creation scientists published a booklet entitled Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy and mailed it to thousands of school teachers. The general idea of the booklet was to encourage open- mindedness on certain issues and controversies regarding evolution. Evolutionists quickly chided the publication as a clever disguise of creationism. To quote Johnson, "The pervasive message was that the ASA [American Scientific Affiliation] is a deceitful creationist front which disguises its Biblical literalist agenda under a pretense of scientific objectivity."

In other words, anything that smells of God must be creationist and must be stamped out.

Darwinist Education
In the later chapters of Johnson's book, he analyzes the reaction of evolutionists to the challenges that have been leveled against them. It is here that he perhaps makes his greatest contribution. One of these reactions has been to wage what is essentially an evolutionary filibuster in educating the public about evolution. Johnson cites the experience of the British Museum of Natural History when it opened an exhibit on evolution in 1981. The exhibit presented Darwinian evolution as one idea and one possible explanation. Creation was cited as another view. This tentativeness was too much for some scientists to bear. A firestorm of criticism appeared in the British science journal Nature. Many were furious that the museum would actually go public with doubts about evolution, doubts that had previously been reserved for discussion among evolutionary scientists alone. The criticism was so severe that the museum eventually removed the exhibit and replaced it with a more "traditional" evolution exhibit. One of the Museum's top scientists, Colin Patterson, made a similar reversal concerning his view that he required faith in order to accept evolution. The criticism eventually convinced him to discontinue making these statements public.
In the United States, the Science Framework adopted by the state of California in 1989, which has a significant effect on the content of science textbooks, contained this statement concerning evolution: "[Evolution] is an accepted scientific explanation and therefore no more controversial in scientific circles than the theories of gravitation and electron flow."

This assertion is nothing more than an appeal to authority and has nothing to do with legitimate scientific evidence. As a result of this statement, evolution is being included in science textbooks at increasingly lower grade levels. The purpose is clear: if students can be indoctrinated in evolution early enough and often enough, perhaps all this controversy can be avoided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Dwayne, let me ask you this?

I understand that you believe science is a self correcting thing and if evolution is wrong and creation is right, it will come out. Here's my question:

Let's say you die and a hundred years pass by and science self corrects and deems that evolution was the biggest mistake and hoax in scientific history.

When Jesus asks why did you believe in evolution and seeing Him you're sure evolution was wrong, what are you going to say?

I think the outcome of that conversation and the ramifications justify a closer inspection of what evidence really supports evolution and could it be wrong.

Your statement that you believe the world is so and so years old and people were apes is all based on your belief that science is leading toward the truth and it's clear enough for you.

But, what if they are wrong. Meaning the assumptions to which all the subsequent beliefs are premised upon. I hope that bothers you because a lot is riding on it.

And I'm not talking just about life after death, I'm talking about life now. Did you know that all your major decisions and beliefs about life stem from your belief about who you are and if God exists.

Evolution is about no-God, do whatever you want, survival of the fittest, you're a monkey, you only live once and then you die, he who dies with the most toys wins, etc. Where's the love, joy, peace, gentleness, selfsacrifice, etc. in that.

They say that Hell is a place that GOd created for people who don't WANT to be with him. It's going to be filled for eternity with people who believe in evolution-based life. There won't be any love, joy, peace, self sacrifice, etc.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
So everyone who believes in evolution is going to hell?

Is that what you're saying?

Should they just be put to death now? I mean if you had the power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
"The book Darwin on Trial directly addresses this issue and how the standard defination of science has been structured so that all non-evolution (materialism) ideas are deemed not science."

Oh i see scientific methodology didn't develope because those that used it came up with facts that led to advances in their field, but rather so non-evolution ideas would be untestable? You've got to be kidding.

"You are right that some people only want to talk science, and I believe that includes creation people, but the problem is any non-materialistic based first cause is deemed not science. I think you can understand that."

You seem to want science to be theology or philosophy, it is neither of those because those don't work in elucidating the facts about our materialistic universe, which doesn't mean they're not useful for other purposes just not for science.

"Here's a link to the book and by the way, the guy Phillip Johnson is a Berkeley professor and one with outstanding references".

Isn't that guy a lawyer not a scientist?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830813241/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref=nosim/102-4351138-0368104[/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Certainly.....

Not.

Salvation is not based on belief in evolution or not, but evolution is based on materialism (belief that God doe not exist) therefore live life according to that belief.

I think the key verse of the Bible is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth".

If you can put evolution aside for a moment and assume that Genesis 1:1 could be true, then I believe you can read the Bible and have a good chance of understanding it and checking it out.

In truth, I believe no one has started to believe in God because of these types of conversations, but I do believe that showing people that evolution isn't true as fact can knock down walls that block people from looking intellectually at alternatives.

A biblical framework works very well in life. I would even venture to say very well and with love, joy, peace, wisdom and hope that you won't find in materialism. I'm not walking crooked, etc. just because I'm a Christian.

Thanks for asking me for my thoughts if I was God. I'm not, thankfully. I wouldn't want the responsibility for working with frustration on a daily basis forever. Thankfully, He see the good in it and I can rest in that.
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,581 Posts
and what will you do when you die, and there is no heaven waiting for you, despite your faith that it is there?

see, i can ask stupid, pointless questions too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
My suggestion to you (and I'm not going to

argue evolution, just give you a leg up on an open mind of your own) is that people can believe in evolution and still be great Christians, and in fact there are MANY great Christians who believe in evolution.

Maybe you believe your own little sect has a monopoly on Truth, but it's a little hard to believe that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Did you read what I wrote

I never said that all "real" Christians don't believe in evolution.

Now I do believe that it makes them weaker in life, but they are saved none the less.

See right there, I've just knocked down your little wall that all creationist think evolution believers are all going to Hell.

Any other mental mind blocks you need addressed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
lotterypick, you are a lousy proselytizer. Perhaps you mean well, but your notions about life and the universe wreak of fear and ignorance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
210 Posts
Well, yes, I believe so.

You can explain how this little paragraph doesn't create a pretty good wall..

"They say that Hell is a place that GOd created for people who don't WANT to be with him. It's going to be filled for eternity with people who believe in evolution-based life. There won't be any love, joy, peace, self sacrifice, etc."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Easy

TiJeanKerouac said:
You can explain how this little paragraph doesn't create a pretty good wall..

"They say that Hell is a place that GOd created for people who don't WANT to be with him. It's going to be filled for eternity with people who believe in evolution-based life. There won't be any love, joy, peace, self sacrifice, etc."
The question always comes up, usually in a mad tone, "If God is love, then how could He create Hell !!!!!!!".

Well the answer is: God is so loving, that He created a place that people who don't want to be with Him can go (it's totally devoid of Him presence, which would make them happy). THat place just happens to be called Hell.

It's not His fault that when He tells you what Hell is like, it's not a nice place. BUt then again, you have to remember that every person gets free will to choose with whom they will spend eternity. With God or with Satan.

People just don't get it "with Satan" is being with someone who hates everything about you and will deface you (imagine what you will) for all of eternity.

Whereas God loves you just as you are and accepts you as such and wants only your best. Meaning, that you would have love, joy, peace, fun, etc. forever.

The choice for me is clear.

See, I've explained it and now you can forget wondering about that question. If you have another, feel free to ask.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
You're way out of line

by implying that belief in evolution is anti-God or more specifically anti-Jesus. why can't you accept the idea that maybe science is a means to continually uncover hidden truths about our universe, our earth and ourselves. what makes you think that God couldn't have created the earth over the course of billions of years. by oversimplifying creation, you're oversimplifying God. why does everyone pretend to know everything about how God thinks, how He acts, about all the intricate details surrounding all of His activities. give the Creator of the universe a little credit here. maybe the bible isn't a perfectly sound historical record. parts of it were written thousands of years ago by simple people with little understanding of the world around them. were they inspired by God to write? sure. did they record the oral history of their people. absolutely. did they provide accurrate accounts of their experiences with God. probably. did they know absolutely everything there was to know about God or about the creation of the earth? no. does anyone know everything about God today, thousands of years later? no. science isn't necessarily anti-God. we can use the knowledge that science provides us to better understand just how amazingly complex creation was/is. science AND theology are constantly evolving and expanding what is known about our surroundings.

AND.......i think you're missing just about everyone's point that the link you provided is not scientific. the author of the site provides absolutely no evidence to support his claims, other that references to scripture. why doesn't he act like the scientist he supposedly is, and set out to prove these claims that himself and other young earth creationists are making.

by the way, i consider myself a pretty conservative christian. and i believe in both evolution, and creationism, all to a certain extent. i also believe they can work in conjunction with one another to help uncover the truths that exist. i don't think theology/the bible is without flaws, because there is more to understand about God than we ever WILL understand, so let's not pretend to. i also feel that science has it's flaws, for the same reasons. we'll never understand everything about everything, so let's just accept it, move on. believing in science and all that it has to offer is by no means sacreligous. and you're completely wrong by implying that those of us who chose to open our minds to the possibility of evolution are going to hell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
My luke warm friend

I think you are misguided. You see, evolution faithful understand that evolution is a mechanism that proves God is not neccessary and unimportant, if He exists at all.

What part of no sin before death don't you understand.

What part of Jesus died to save use from the penalty of sin, which is death, don't you understand.

You see evolution says hey parts of the Bible that don't agree with us, is a fairy tale. Do you beleive that?

You must have a low view or impersonal view of God because evolution is just that. He's not neccessary and not involved.

Let me leave you with a quote, which I think you'll understand proves my point, that evolutionist understand the meaning of it to Christianity, better than many Christians.

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30


I have many more if you need more.
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top