Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?
- Thread starter River Jordan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That still doesn't make sense.
I still don't understand what you were trying to say there.UppsalaDragby said:
Well I don't understand what you don't understand. Everything that applies to mankind applies to scientists. There is a tendency to prefer going one's own way than God's. Are you trying to say that scientists are immune from doing so?River Jordan said:
And what doesn't make sense?
Evolution
Since the mid A.D. 1800s knowledge has accelerated, technology increased, with the consequent huge expansion of war, travel, communication etc., (Dan. 12:4.), these made possible by the advent of the industrial revolution. This expansion coincided with an event in 1858 of the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species", which led to conflict between theologians and scientists, called "The great debate". In the event the scientists won that debate, and the power (albeit corrupted) of the church declined. The basic thesis of the book by Darwin, is that all life on earth has developed to the present stage, by a very slow process from extremely primitive forms, and that this process is continuous and in the main upward, in the sense of betterment in each stage. The time periods involved are reckoned in the millions of years, and the requirement is that the environment is conducive (magnanimous) to the slow process. At the time of the publication of Darwin’s theories, little or nothing was known of the facts regarding the frequent catastrophes that overtake planet earth. (See Immanuel Velikovski : (Russian scientist), “Worlds in Collision”, “World in Upheaval”, “Ages in Chaos”). Velikovsky, who died in 1979, was an accredited Russian scientist, who because of his radical thinking was sidelined by the mainstream of his day. He was however taken seriously by Albert Einstein, and the two maintained links for many years before Einstein’s death. His work has however been adopted recently by governments world wide, due to the growing awareness of the planetary and asteroid effect periodically on planet Earth! In the basic thesis of Velikovsky, the world is subjected to extreme, even catastrophic events every 30,000 to 50,000 years, some of which in his thesis end all life on earth! This of course is in conflict with Darwin’s “steady state” requirement, as clearly Evolution, even if the thesis is viable, requires huge time spans of millions of years to develop to “intelligent life forms!” So, the pet theory of current “respectable science” has been dealt a serious blow! The response has been to try to ignore such data as is available (see below), and to argue strongly for the “accepted solution” for life on earth, i.e. Evolution, and to not take seriously the “Creation myth!”
In reality, scientists are quite sharply divided between evolution and Creation, Scientists refute Darwin: Depending on which source of information is read, up to 50% of scientists believe in Creation, if only secretly, but other surveys show only much smaller figures. Whatever the truth as regards the percentages, it is not the point, what is the point is that life cannot exist without the intervention of The Life Source, Almighty God! No matter how many “soups” are replicated in the laboratory, the “spark" of life cannot be struck! This leaves the “atheists” and “agnostics” with a problem, which as usual in the “human condition” is dealt with in a devious way. The current methodology is to “deny and deride” any thing which could remove the credibility of the Darwin theory, and to shout long and loud, on the principle that in the world as it is, those who shout the loudest and longest, or who hold the reins of power, will win! It is remarkable how loud the atheists scream, when a contrary view is broached!?
The current furore is so pronounced, that one is left wondering what is at stake for those shouting the loudest? Of course there is “professional pride”, but even more alarming, is that should the scientists and governments be proved wrong, the Creation hypothesis must be considered seriously, which means the Bible's claims must be considered, which would devastate the position of so many people in high and low positions in all walks of life, as they realised their vulnerable position before Almighty God, and His Christ!
On the subject of reconsideration. It is reported that Charles Darwin on his death bed, recanted his theory of Evolution. This was commented on by Lady Hope, a reliable source. The account has been denied by Darwin’s family, and by his apologists, but is probably true, as Lady Hope was a devout Christian of good standing. It matters not whether Darwin recanted or not, his is only a human idea. What does matter is the weight of evidence for or against, by those that do not believe the Bible! The above facts, together with the records listed in the website ("old relics ignored by science") at bottom, give plenty of material for sincere "information seekers", who are truly intent on trying to verify or otherwise the "idea" of Darwin!
The behaviour of the scientific community, and of government departments, in attempting to stop information from reaching the public domain, and to stop consideration of such information in open debate is deplorable, and a lengthy account of such is in the websites at bottom. The falsification of "recorded finds" relative to the "missing link" are numerous, and to the shame of so called "objective science!" One of the most well known is the "Piltdown man", but the serious student will easily find many more listed on the "net". A recent example in Germany has destroyed the career of a prominent Professor.
The Bible’s claims on all men and women worldwide, are relevant to the present population of the world, regardless of the truth of the information contained in the following websites, the contents and sources of which can be examined by anybody!
The Age of the Earth Controversy: (Separate Study)
Old relics ignored by science: ( By Dr.J.R.Jochmans, Litt.D.)
A biologists comment on Darwin: (Dr. Jonathan Wells PHD, PHD interviewed.)
A comment on evolution: (By Philip Johnson, Professor criminal law, Berkeley, USA.)
Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed? (By Malcolm Bowden)
Darwin quote, Dawkins comment, and others.
DNA, the tiny code that is toppling evolution.: (By Mario Sieglie )
Evolution is not supported by fact: (Various comments)
"Big Bang" maths: (By Professor Paul Davies)
The Survival of the Fakest: (Dr. Jonathan Wells Phd, Phd.) (Discovery Institute Publication)
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Subjectindex
Since the mid A.D. 1800s knowledge has accelerated, technology increased, with the consequent huge expansion of war, travel, communication etc., (Dan. 12:4.), these made possible by the advent of the industrial revolution. This expansion coincided with an event in 1858 of the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species", which led to conflict between theologians and scientists, called "The great debate". In the event the scientists won that debate, and the power (albeit corrupted) of the church declined. The basic thesis of the book by Darwin, is that all life on earth has developed to the present stage, by a very slow process from extremely primitive forms, and that this process is continuous and in the main upward, in the sense of betterment in each stage. The time periods involved are reckoned in the millions of years, and the requirement is that the environment is conducive (magnanimous) to the slow process. At the time of the publication of Darwin’s theories, little or nothing was known of the facts regarding the frequent catastrophes that overtake planet earth. (See Immanuel Velikovski : (Russian scientist), “Worlds in Collision”, “World in Upheaval”, “Ages in Chaos”). Velikovsky, who died in 1979, was an accredited Russian scientist, who because of his radical thinking was sidelined by the mainstream of his day. He was however taken seriously by Albert Einstein, and the two maintained links for many years before Einstein’s death. His work has however been adopted recently by governments world wide, due to the growing awareness of the planetary and asteroid effect periodically on planet Earth! In the basic thesis of Velikovsky, the world is subjected to extreme, even catastrophic events every 30,000 to 50,000 years, some of which in his thesis end all life on earth! This of course is in conflict with Darwin’s “steady state” requirement, as clearly Evolution, even if the thesis is viable, requires huge time spans of millions of years to develop to “intelligent life forms!” So, the pet theory of current “respectable science” has been dealt a serious blow! The response has been to try to ignore such data as is available (see below), and to argue strongly for the “accepted solution” for life on earth, i.e. Evolution, and to not take seriously the “Creation myth!”
In reality, scientists are quite sharply divided between evolution and Creation, Scientists refute Darwin: Depending on which source of information is read, up to 50% of scientists believe in Creation, if only secretly, but other surveys show only much smaller figures. Whatever the truth as regards the percentages, it is not the point, what is the point is that life cannot exist without the intervention of The Life Source, Almighty God! No matter how many “soups” are replicated in the laboratory, the “spark" of life cannot be struck! This leaves the “atheists” and “agnostics” with a problem, which as usual in the “human condition” is dealt with in a devious way. The current methodology is to “deny and deride” any thing which could remove the credibility of the Darwin theory, and to shout long and loud, on the principle that in the world as it is, those who shout the loudest and longest, or who hold the reins of power, will win! It is remarkable how loud the atheists scream, when a contrary view is broached!?
The current furore is so pronounced, that one is left wondering what is at stake for those shouting the loudest? Of course there is “professional pride”, but even more alarming, is that should the scientists and governments be proved wrong, the Creation hypothesis must be considered seriously, which means the Bible's claims must be considered, which would devastate the position of so many people in high and low positions in all walks of life, as they realised their vulnerable position before Almighty God, and His Christ!
On the subject of reconsideration. It is reported that Charles Darwin on his death bed, recanted his theory of Evolution. This was commented on by Lady Hope, a reliable source. The account has been denied by Darwin’s family, and by his apologists, but is probably true, as Lady Hope was a devout Christian of good standing. It matters not whether Darwin recanted or not, his is only a human idea. What does matter is the weight of evidence for or against, by those that do not believe the Bible! The above facts, together with the records listed in the website ("old relics ignored by science") at bottom, give plenty of material for sincere "information seekers", who are truly intent on trying to verify or otherwise the "idea" of Darwin!
The behaviour of the scientific community, and of government departments, in attempting to stop information from reaching the public domain, and to stop consideration of such information in open debate is deplorable, and a lengthy account of such is in the websites at bottom. The falsification of "recorded finds" relative to the "missing link" are numerous, and to the shame of so called "objective science!" One of the most well known is the "Piltdown man", but the serious student will easily find many more listed on the "net". A recent example in Germany has destroyed the career of a prominent Professor.
The Bible’s claims on all men and women worldwide, are relevant to the present population of the world, regardless of the truth of the information contained in the following websites, the contents and sources of which can be examined by anybody!
The Age of the Earth Controversy: (Separate Study)
Old relics ignored by science: ( By Dr.J.R.Jochmans, Litt.D.)
A biologists comment on Darwin: (Dr. Jonathan Wells PHD, PHD interviewed.)
A comment on evolution: (By Philip Johnson, Professor criminal law, Berkeley, USA.)
Did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed? (By Malcolm Bowden)
Darwin quote, Dawkins comment, and others.
DNA, the tiny code that is toppling evolution.: (By Mario Sieglie )
Evolution is not supported by fact: (Various comments)
"Big Bang" maths: (By Professor Paul Davies)
The Survival of the Fakest: (Dr. Jonathan Wells Phd, Phd.) (Discovery Institute Publication)
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Subjectindex
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
for those of you who are under the impression that Christians who do not believe the Creation Story is a literal account or scientific, disrespect the truth of the story - i am here to tell you that i believe the truth of the story is much more valuable than any scientific information because it describes the human condition. I just happens to not be scientific - trying to categorize it as science is a downgrade.
I don't understand why you singled out scientists as bypassing God and doing things their own way.UppsalaDragby said:
Floyd....yet another Christian uses a computer and the internet to claim that science and scientists are untrustworthy.
The discussion concerned scientists, and as far as bypassing God and going their own way I didn't single them out, but rather I included them.River Jordan said:
I don't understand why you singled out Floyd when you are talking to me.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
CJ - you sound like you believe science is based in worldly, or demonism so how can you make use of services that are only made possible through science?
Aspen - you sound like you believe science is absolute truth on par with scripture, so how can you make use of services that are only made possible through scripture?
Christianity 101 = bible is absolute truth. Christian common sense 101 = devil makes huge leaps at contriving science to stumble God's children.
If you and River have any honesty / sincerity to your posts / views....I am waiting for you here: post # 94 http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19792-arguments-against-theistic-evolution/page-4
River...yet another evolutionist visits a Christian site and claims the bible and it's author / s are untrustworthy.
Christianity 101 = bible is absolute truth. Christian common sense 101 = devil makes huge leaps at contriving science to stumble God's children.
If you and River have any honesty / sincerity to your posts / views....I am waiting for you here: post # 94 http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19792-arguments-against-theistic-evolution/page-4
I don't understand why you singled out bible believing Christians as bypassing science and doing things their own way.River Jordan said:
River...yet another evolutionist visits a Christian site and claims the bible and it's author / s are untrustworthy.
Trying to categorise evolution as a science is to downgrade scripture and make the many Christians who love God and science swallow a camel sized cactus.aspen said:
Sure....when you describe barbers and plumbers as "trying to bypass God" be sure to let me know.UppsalaDragby said:
That's how this forum works. If you respond to two people consecutively, it puts the responses into the same post. Such as....
I'd ask you to back up your accusations, but we both know you won't. You feel no moral obligation to do so.KingJ said:
There ya' go....the basis for everything KingJ says about this subject. Even saying "evolution is science" = "downgrading scripture".
Aspen,
Am I CJ?
I use computers because they have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology or darwinism.
Are computers evil? Not inherently. However, there very well may come a time when you bury your technology in a deep hole and then run as fast as humanly possible.
Let's hope not but..........
Am I CJ?
I use computers because they have absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology or darwinism.
Are computers evil? Not inherently. However, there very well may come a time when you bury your technology in a deep hole and then run as fast as humanly possible.
Let's hope not but..........
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I was thinking more about medicine, but I think you understand my point. You seem to have no problem reaping the fruit of science when you can distant it from its roots. It is only when the roots are exposed that you reject it. I am just looking for some consistency. It reminds me of people who eat meat, but look the other way when slaughter houses are discussed.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
I do feel a morale obligation to help you. That's why I am waiting for you here: post # 94 http://www.christian...volution/page-4. I have concluded that the only way to discuss with you is to give you simple questions and ask for simple answers. If you could communicate better / honestly that wouldn't be needed.River Jordan said:
River, how many times must I explain to you the SIMPLE facts that 1. Evolution says God is evil as natural selection = evil 2. Evolution says the cross is a joke as intelligence / accountability evolved and 3. Evolution says all scripture / every religion is a joke as intelligent man = 200k bc. Hence we have the latest religious dogma.
Now a worthwhile reply from you would be a kind, detailed, lateral thought explanation off those 3 points. Saying 'KingJ, you don't have to stress, X and Y is why I believe God is still good, the cross is not a joke and scripture is inspired by God'. But instead your typical reply is ...sigh...
"I feel a moral obligation to help you"
KingJ; once they expose their true selves by circular and strawmen argument, you know what you are dealing with. These sort are in place until the "harvest", as our Lord said.
In this Age they can look indefinable to Christians; but you will never get them to agree, no matter what you present!
I have only been here approx. a month; but see at least 6 in this category!
Floyd.
KingJ; once they expose their true selves by circular and strawmen argument, you know what you are dealing with. These sort are in place until the "harvest", as our Lord said.
In this Age they can look indefinable to Christians; but you will never get them to agree, no matter what you present!
I have only been here approx. a month; but see at least 6 in this category!
Floyd.
Aspen,
You are suggesting that Darwinian theory is the root of science?
I find that a fundamental fallacy.
You are making the incoherent argument that science cannot be "done" outside of Darwin. Preposterous
You are suggesting that Darwinian theory is the root of science?
I find that a fundamental fallacy.
You are making the incoherent argument that science cannot be "done" outside of Darwin. Preposterous
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Darwin is outdated. the theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years since and has become a framework for all natural science. Calling evolution Darwinism is like calling Psychology, Freudism or all cars Fords.
also, i think it is quaint when fundamentalists muddy the water and then claim that the people who are communicating clearly are confusing or illogical - lol. all you have to do is open your eyes wide enough to see another perspective without mocking or sarcasm. i have no problem seeing yours - i just disagree with it. Mormons think we are crazy and illogical regarding the docrine of the Trinity no matter how clearly the information is presented because they intentionally muddy the water to ensure that it can not threaten their belief about the nature of God.
you are not defending the Bible or God by denying the evidence which points to our evolving world - you are defending your pet method of interpretating the Bible - you are equating literal with true. this is a recent method of interpretation - it is a result of modernism, not inspiration. Joel Osteen has been compromised by the new age, but he could look at your modern method of interpretation and make the same claim - that you are compromised by a materialistic craving for literalism.
also, i think it is quaint when fundamentalists muddy the water and then claim that the people who are communicating clearly are confusing or illogical - lol. all you have to do is open your eyes wide enough to see another perspective without mocking or sarcasm. i have no problem seeing yours - i just disagree with it. Mormons think we are crazy and illogical regarding the docrine of the Trinity no matter how clearly the information is presented because they intentionally muddy the water to ensure that it can not threaten their belief about the nature of God.
you are not defending the Bible or God by denying the evidence which points to our evolving world - you are defending your pet method of interpretating the Bible - you are equating literal with true. this is a recent method of interpretation - it is a result of modernism, not inspiration. Joel Osteen has been compromised by the new age, but he could look at your modern method of interpretation and make the same claim - that you are compromised by a materialistic craving for literalism.
Aspen,
Our understanding (you and I) of science is completely different. The terms and what they mean and the implication of said meaning are polar opposites.
I could define what I consider darwinism but ultimately what would it accomplish?
So I will just leave it at that.
Our understanding (you and I) of science is completely different. The terms and what they mean and the implication of said meaning are polar opposites.
I could define what I consider darwinism but ultimately what would it accomplish?
So I will just leave it at that.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
i agree. i refuse to dismiss evidence, research, and the life work of professionals within the scientific community - i do not claim to know more than people who are experts in their field of study.
We also disagree on Bible interpretation and the definition of 'inspired'.
We also disagree on Bible interpretation and the definition of 'inspired'.
Similar threads
