Again, name the Ph.D creationist scientist who became an evolutionist and I will name ten evolutionists scientist who became creationist by observing the evidence open mindedly.
The mere fact of being or becoming a "Creationist" indicates a rejection of science. People reject reality for all sorts of reasons. It's not evidence that a fairy tale (the one they adopt in its place) is true. The fairy tale here is the imposition onto the creation account a story line proposed by pre-scientific people, i.e., a hyper literal one.
PS I assume, based on your insistence on absolute literalism, that you agree with the Roman Catholics on the literal transformation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood during communion service, right? In other words, the bread and wine are not mere figures of his body and blood for our remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross, but literally become his body and blood, only your senses being fooled into still seeing and tasting bread and wine. That's what you believe, right, because you're a literalist in your interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Right?
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
- John 6:53
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
- Matthew 26:26-28
You are a special person. You think because a scientist finally sees the light that all of a sudden he rejects the very science that changed his mind. Please post some of the evidence that "real" scientist "know" that other scientists don't know. Do they observe a different sun? Do they look at different fossils? Do they test different strata? Do they measure the amount of different chemicals in the rivers and oceans? What are these evidences to which you appeal? Try to teach us about retrograde planets for a start.
I accept Scripture. What you or I think about something does not change it from what it is.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I accept Scripture. What you or I think about something does not change it from what it is.
I notice you are avoiding answering questions along these lines.
I accept Scripture, too. My question relates to whether you accept every part of Scripture literally or not. Are you Roman Catholic on the bread and wine literally becoming the body and blood of Christ during communion service, or do you believe this was meant by Christ to be taken metaphorically as opposed to literally?
The biggest problem with this whole discussion is the mistaken assumption that there are only two camps - creationist and evolutionist - and that they are diametrically opposed. There are creationist scientists who accept the evidence of an ancient universe and genetic shifts. There are also scientists who do not invoke God but admit evidence of design.
As I mentioned earlier, those arguing from the extreme opposite ends of the question are, IMO, both overlooking much recent scientific discovery. As it stands, a lot of straw men are being propped up by both extreme camps. Playing the label game isn't very educational, but if you must, it would be more accurate to simply divide the groups into "atheist", and "believer".
I'm curious. What do "retrograde planets" have to do with anything?
I don't know what Ringman is alluding to, but it was scientists who figured out that what appears to the incurious eye as planets moving back and forth....is not. That lead to the "delusion" which landed some of them in trouble with the religious dogma of the day.
Idunno...Ringman - you surely aren't still thinking "retrograde" planets are changing direction....are you?
The biggest problem with this whole discussion is the mistaken assumption that there are only two camps - creationist and evolutionist - and that they are diametrically opposed. There are creationist scientists who accept the evidence of an ancient universe and genetic shifts. There are also scientists who do not invoke God but admit evidence of design.
As I mentioned earlier, those arguing from the extreme opposite ends of the question are, IMO, both overlooking much recent scientific discovery. As it stands, a lot of straw men are being propped up by both extreme camps. Playing the label game isn't very educational, but if you must, it would be more accurate to simply divide the groups into "atheist", and "believer".
An important distinction to be made is between "Creationists" and Christians who believe in divine creation, but don't accept the fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, but rather allow that it's a metaphorical description of creation, leaving out details which were later filled in by scientific discovery, i.e., Genesis wasn't meant as a science text book.
A "Creationist" is someone who believes that the earth and physical universe are ten thousand years old, or less, that each species that ever lived, including man, was conjured into existence at roughly the same time, is roughly the same today as then, and that no animals of distinct species are connected genetically to any animal of another species, all being unique, unrelated, members of their own distinctly created species, e.g., a horse and a donkey (the Creationist will tell you) never had a common ancestor that lived some time in the past, nor did a snake and an iguana, a cow and a lion, a T-Rex and a mallard, etc., etc..
There’s no such thing as a second camp, creation is too complicated to be explained by evolution, the the fire flies, all the fishes and girls and butterflies and the amazing complex nature of human cells. Creation and a higher person is the only thing that explains it in a spiritual and scientific way. Nothing in this world happens by chance.
According to Genesis, God assigned the job to nature. It says that God commanded that the waters and the earth bring forth all the living creatures, and they did. That's what science says happened, too.
That is not quite right on either account at least as I see it. The next verse in the narrative after the one you are sorta quoting clearly states that God created the critters and told them to multiply AFTER THEIR KIND. The words "after their kind" is repeated several times. You have already stated that you believe that leaves the door open for the evolution theory because "after millions of years" of a species breeding after its kind it can develop into another species. That is fine if you choose to believe that but it can't be proven. It also cannot be disproven.
Evolution is theory not science. Science is about what can be observed, tested and repeated. We can argue for months about the boiling point of water. I can say its 80 degrees. You can say its 212. Neither of us will know until we get a container of water, a thermometer, and a heat source. Then it will be proven to be 212 and not 80 no matter how many times the experiment is repeated. Case closed. That is science.
Conversely, no one has observed nor documented evolution. A metric crap ton of theory and conjecture and a few out right lies have been put out to sell and support it. The simple fact is that no one has ever seen life reproduce except after its kind. Closest thing I can think of that comes close to violating this principle is interspecies hybrids. Man can under controlled circumstances create these. We can breed horses and donkeys and get a mule which is a really neat animal but almost all of them are sterile. I think also a similar situation exists with lions and tigers. Actual science can explain why this happens.....IIRC these similar animals have different numbers of chromosomes and that is why their offspring is not able to reproduce. Hmmmmmm?
Anyway lets get down to the nitty gritty. What is my beef? Well first of all it does not threaten my faith in the least. If it is ever proven to my satisfaction and taken from theory to fact, the obvious fall back position is "that's the way God did it"......which is what most "rational free thinkers" who have a problem with the hurricane in a junkyard creating a shiny new 2018 F-150 aspect of it, or perhaps are afraid of going to hell resort to. Belief in an infinite supreme being gives one a lot of mental latitude. Big bang? No problem, the big banger did it. Life developing over "millions of years".....no problem, the big guy was just taking his time.
So what IS the problem. The problem is that I can't help but notice that the theory of evolution started about the same time very likely by the same group of 19th century intellectuals that thought Marxism was a great idea. They sold it with lies about a pig tooth and a monkey skull put together with glue. I was taught about Nebraska man and Piltdown man as a child in the public screwel system. I was a grown man before I learned that they were hoaxes which really pissed me off. These great "discoveries" were printed on the front pages of all the papers of their times and put in all the school books. When the truth was discovered, it may have been noised about in academia but the papers put it in a one paragraph retraction on section d3 by the classifieds, and NatGeo sure as heck didn't do a special about it like they did when it first came out. Exactly like "fake news" today. It does not matter. Regular rank and file people do not keep up with this crap. A generation of kids believe in evolution based on the lies they were taught, have abandoned faith, and are open to Marxism which was the goal in the first place.
The same playbook is continued. Every so often a :"scientist" or "archaeologist" will show up in the news with a bone he found somewhere. He will tell you what he believes about it and very likely draw some pictures of some kind of human like critter that no one has ever or will ever see and explain how it fits into the big picture. Thus the concept is propagated without any actual proof. More theory which serves the purpose of keeping the idea in people's mind.....that is presented as fact. Rank and file people will read the article, say ain't that neat and forget about it, but they will believe, in a superficial way, in evolution. In other words, the customer base is maintained by continued sales.
If these clowns left it in the realm of theory it would be one thing and I would say nary a thing. But they present it as fact and get real pissy about it if you ask questions. Those of you who think "evolution is how God did it"......go ahead and share that with one of them. They will mock and ridicule you, even though their theory is no more provable or scientific than the creation narrative or the ancient alien theory......Gus, that is your cue buddy! You MUST believe their narrative, or else you get the ridicule business which is straight out of the Alinsky playbook. The possibility of a supreme being is not allowed because that throws a big ole monkey wrench in the agenda which is acceptance of an all powerful state.
What I find fascinating is that 99 percent of the folks on this board hate a damn commie. Flat out to the point of taking up arms. You want to keep your guns most of all, but also your money, freedom and constitutional republic. Yet some of the most stalwart of you will kneel and take the sacrament of their religion which is evolution as fact. What is the goal of the commies? Destruction of the old order, the culture of Western Civilization by any means. Religion, specifically the Christian religion, WAS a big part of that. Evolution has been the big weapon they have used to destroy that part of it.
Long post I know but I just want to make the point that all skepticism of evolution is not based on solely "being an evangelical" that no one can talk to but in my case moreso the people who are selling it and how they are selling it.
Amen. Worthwhile to read again.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Very interesting conversation on the topic. I've long believed there was a problem with the statistics.
You did it now, three smart joos gumming up the works...
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
According to Genesis, God assigned the job to nature. It says that God commanded that the waters and the earth bring forth all the living creatures, and they did. That's what science says happened, too.
That is not quite right on either account at least as I see it. The next verse in the narrative after the one you are sorta quoting clearly states that God created the critters and told them to multiply AFTER THEIR KIND. The words "after their kind" is repeated several times. You have already stated that you believe that leaves the door open for the evolution theory because "after millions of years" of a species breeding after its kind it can develop into another species. That is fine if you choose to believe that but it can't be proven. It also cannot be disproven.
Evolution is theory not science. Science is about what can be observed, tested and repeated. We can argue for months about the boiling point of water. I can say its 80 degrees. You can say its 212. Neither of us will know until we get a container of water, a thermometer, and a heat source. Then it will be proven to be 212 and not 80 no matter how many times the experiment is repeated. Case closed. That is science.
Conversely, no one has observed nor documented evolution. A metric crap ton of theory and conjecture and a few out right lies have been put out to sell and support it. The simple fact is that no one has ever seen life reproduce except after its kind. Closest thing I can think of that comes close to violating this principle is interspecies hybrids. Man can under controlled circumstances create these. We can breed horses and donkeys and get a mule which is a really neat animal but almost all of them are sterile. I think also a similar situation exists with lions and tigers. Actual science can explain why this happens.....IIRC these similar animals have different numbers of chromosomes and that is why their offspring is not able to reproduce. Hmmmmmm?
Anyway lets get down to the nitty gritty. What is my beef? Well first of all it does not threaten my faith in the least. If it is ever proven to my satisfaction and taken from theory to fact, the obvious fall back position is "that's the way God did it"......which is what most "rational free thinkers" who have a problem with the hurricane in a junkyard creating a shiny new 2018 F-150 aspect of it, or perhaps are afraid of going to hell resort to. Belief in an infinite supreme being gives one a lot of mental latitude. Big bang? No problem, the big banger did it. Life developing over "millions of years".....no problem, the big guy was just taking his time.
So what IS the problem. The problem is that I can't help but notice that the theory of evolution started about the same time very likely by the same group of 19th century intellectuals that thought Marxism was a great idea. They sold it with lies about a pig tooth and a monkey skull put together with glue. I was taught about Nebraska man and Piltdown man as a child in the public screwel system. I was a grown man before I learned that they were hoaxes which really pissed me off. These great "discoveries" were printed on the front pages of all the papers of their times and put in all the school books. When the truth was discovered, it may have been noised about in academia but the papers put it in a one paragraph retraction on section d3 by the classifieds, and NatGeo sure as heck didn't do a special about it like they did when it first came out. Exactly like "fake news" today. It does not matter. Regular rank and file people do not keep up with this crap. A generation of kids believe in evolution based on the lies they were taught, have abandoned faith, and are open to Marxism which was the goal in the first place.
The same playbook is continued. Every so often a :"scientist" or "archaeologist" will show up in the news with a bone he found somewhere. He will tell you what he believes about it and very likely draw some pictures of some kind of human like critter that no one has ever or will ever see and explain how it fits into the big picture. Thus the concept is propagated without any actual proof. More theory which serves the purpose of keeping the idea in people's mind.....that is presented as fact. Rank and file people will read the article, say ain't that neat and forget about it, but they will believe, in a superficial way, in evolution. In other words, the customer base is maintained by continued sales.
If these clowns left it in the realm of theory it would be one thing and I would say nary a thing. But they present it as fact and get real pissy about it if you ask questions. Those of you who think "evolution is how God did it"......go ahead and share that with one of them. They will mock and ridicule you, even though their theory is no more provable or scientific than the creation narrative or the ancient alien theory......Gus, that is your cue buddy! You MUST believe their narrative, or else you get the ridicule business which is straight out of the Alinsky playbook. The possibility of a supreme being is not allowed because that throws a big ole monkey wrench in the agenda which is acceptance of an all powerful state.
What I find fascinating is that 99 percent of the folks on this board hate a damn commie. Flat out to the point of taking up arms. You want to keep your guns most of all, but also your money, freedom and constitutional republic. Yet some of the most stalwart of you will kneel and take the sacrament of their religion which is evolution as fact. What is the goal of the commies? Destruction of the old order, the culture of Western Civilization by any means. Religion, specifically the Christian religion, WAS a big part of that. Evolution has been the big weapon they have used to destroy that part of it.
Long post I know but I just want to make the point that all skepticism of evolution is not based on solely "being an evangelical" that no one can talk to but in my case moreso the people who are selling it and how they are selling it.
Amen. Worthwhile to read again.
“Evolution is theory not science.” This is my favorite part!
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
I’ve read Darwin’s doubt and it is compelling. The mathematics of Darwinian evolution just don’t work.
And the author makes a point that it goes beyond evolution or the origin of species. That every scientific discipline is finding evidence of design.
Regardless of the merits of the intelligent design theory, there can be no doubt that Darwinian thought has become a religion in itself. Every challenge is met with an emotional response uncharacteristic of science. Further, every scientific challenge is met a host of responses that do not deconstruct the science behind the challenge and show why it is wrong in a particular instance, but instead propose some alternate mechanism by which Darwinian evolution is still correct or explain how the challenger misunderstood some mechanism of the theory. Both assertions relying on some as yet unproved but only theorized mechanism of change in organisms.
And really, it’s been the same from the start. Darwin admitted at the first that the evidence for his theory was lacking but that it would be found in the fossil record. And I’m sure that if he had had even the slightest inkling of the complexity of the biology needed, he would have claimed that future discoveries would there would show him right as well. But we are going on nearly 200 years and the fossil records have largely failed to show what he said they would and the more we learn about the biology, the more unlikely Darwinian evolution seems. Yet, the argument is much the same as it was in the beginning, we simply don’t know enough. The evidence is there waiting to be discovered. Once we know enough, we’ll see all along that materialist bottom up evolution was right all along.
When you start with a theory and you insist upon its viability despite a lack of evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence, and you rely on assertions that evidence is there but not found yet, you no longer have a scientific theory. You have dogma, a worldview, and a religion.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/yvwdYl1.jpg)