PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Are TE's going to Hell?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a theistic evolutionist I have been told by creationists that because I accept evolution, big bang ect. that I am going to Hell. I don't recall this type of behavior on this forum, so I'm not accusing any creationist here of it, but it is something I've encountered quite a bit between forums, Bible study and general conversation. So I was wondering if you (creationists) consider acceptance of evolution ect as a sin, and if you accept it you are going to Hell, even if you are "Christian"?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:59 PM on September 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The bibliolaters will tell you yes.  A Christian wouldn't be so arrogant.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:40 PM on September 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure my brother thinks that's where I'm headed.  Not because I deserve it, but because I'm a non-believer.

I find the whole concept of heaven and hell very primitive, without any rational validity.  I think it's primarily used as a fear factor and to exert control and power over people.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:18 PM on September 9, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi fencer,

First of all.  No man is supposed to judge another man.  Matthew 7:1  Do not judge or you will be judged.

We are to judge not each other, we are to love each other, because we are to be humble.  

I would never say someone is going to hell for anything, because if it wasn't for God's forgiveness I will go to hell.  SO I ask God to forgive me.

However forgiveness is not a license to sin, according to the scripture we are responsible for our own sins not someone else's.  We are each responsible for our own sins.

You asked was believing in evolution and being a Christian a sin.  Fencer, God knows your heart.

The problem is you deny Adam and Eve, so where does it stop.  If Adam and Eve is a narrative, and you interpret it as allegory-then you can basically interpret anything in the Bible as allegory.

You also cancel out the doctrine of sin, which came through Adam.

Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

1 Corinthians 15:21, 22
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat4 of it you shall surely die.”

So the Apostle Paul taught that sin and death came from Adam and that Christ was the cure for sin.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:00 PM on September 9, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You asked was believing in evolution and being a Christian a sin.  Fencer, God knows your heart.

The problem is you deny Adam and Eve, so where does it stop.  If Adam and Eve is a narrative, and you interpret it as allegory-then you can basically interpret anything in the Bible as allegory.


Surely, you realize that there is much allegory in the Bible.   The fact that some of it is, is not evidence that all of it is.   BTW, Adam and Eve are not ruled out by evolution.

You also cancel out the doctrine of sin, which came through Adam.


As you see, that's not true.   And the death God spoke of to Adam is a spiritual, not a physical death.  So it has nothing to do with evolution.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,  17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat4 of it you shall surely die.”

Adam ate of it, but lived on for many years physically.

Further, Jesus died to save us from death.  But if it was a physical death, He failed.  We will all die physically.   He gave us life everlasting in the next world, not immortality in this one.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 9, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 3:18 PM on September 9, 2009 :
I'm sure my brother thinks that's where I'm headed.  Not because I deserve it, but because I'm a non-believer.

I find the whole concept of heaven and hell very primitive, without any rational validity.  I think it's primarily used as a fear factor and to exert control and power over people.


I don't know what it is going to be like after death, but to sit around and say this person is saved, this one not and so on seems futile and ultimately useless at best. As AFJ pointed out from the Bible, it is not our place to Judge who goes to heaven and hell. I think it is far more important on how one conducts their life rather than the specific doctrine they follow.

Interesting enough, the concept of heaven and hell isn't in the original Jewish teaching, but was included during the Babylonian exile. Over the summer I've talked to Jewish friends who told me that hell isn't even in modern Jewish teachings.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:02 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 9:00 PM on September 9, 2009 :
Hi fencer,

First of all.  No man is supposed to judge another man.  Matthew 7:1  Do not judge or you will be judged.


Hi AFJ,

I agree, but at the same time we must be able to judge others actions to a certain extent. Christianity is a social religion, and part of our religion is to be able to sit down with one another and say "I think you have a problem with this sin." I agree that we shouldn't judge people on heaven and hell, but to a certain degree we must be able to judge.

You asked was believing in evolution and being a Christian a sin.  Fencer, God knows your heart.


We must have the ability to decide what is sinful and what is not; if we didn't than repenting would be impossible and we would all be innocent. Not to mention it poses problems to a literal read of Genesis to say we can't know with the apple and all.

The problem is you deny Adam and Eve, so where does it stop.  If Adam and Eve is a narrative, and you interpret it as allegory-then you can basically interpret anything in the Bible as allegory.


I'm with Yehren on this one. To say that one part is allegory is not to say everything else is. The Bible was written over many generations, cultures and languages. It is truly an amazing piece of work, but we must respect certain cultural aspects of the Bible and realize that many cultures of that time and geographical area used allegorical narratives to communicate what they wanted.

You also cancel out the doctrine of sin, which came through Adam.


Again I'm with Yehren on this. There are figurative devices used to show how sin entered the world. One of them being the ages of people like Adam. As I'm sure you know the life span gradually decreases in the genealogies that deal with ages. This is to show, figuratively, that people are going farther and farther away from God on the Hebrew belief that the body and soul were one, and the longer you lived the more righteous you were.

As Yehren pointed out, if Jesus was supposed to conquer physical death than He failed; everything dies.

So the Apostle Paul taught that sin and death came from Adam and that Christ was the cure for sin.


I've never studied this part so this is only my interpretation. It seems to me that Adam is referring to the original sin that a person committed, whatever that might be. In doing this original sin we have separated ourselves from God, and only Jesus can forgive us of that sin (and all that follow) through His grace and His grace alone.

"in Christ shall all be made alive" seems to make more sense when talking about a spiritual life rather than a physical one, as all flesh parishes from the Earth.

Getting back to the original question, do you consider acceptance of evolution a sin? If you don't know you don't know.

(Edited by Fencer27 9/10/2009 at 04:52 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:43 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting back to the original question, do you consider acceptance of evolution a sin? If you don't know you don't know.


My opinion on this one is that believing in evolution is not a sin because we are all indoctrinated into it from cradle to grave in this world. The problem is that believing in evolution tends to lead to agnosticism because the two positions (creation and evolution) contradict one another. That was my personal experience and the experience of many others whose testimonies I have read.
If it doesn't affect you that way then chances are you may be missing the point of the gospel message. Death came through sin and nowhere does it specify spiritual death only. From the time sin came into the world, people started to die which doesn't mean they dropped down immediately but that the process began (mutation?), the curse on all things. I think the law of entropy was set in motion at that point and that that was the curse which results in death. Everything is wearing down and ultimately there will be no heat left, no energy transfer just cold nothing.

But don't worry because Jesus is literally coming back to earth before that so don't let science get in the way of your knowing that something's coming up and you'd better be ready. I would read the Bible myself if in doubt and see whether the two are actually compatible. Also don't believe other people's opinions but make sure you don't ignore the warning because it is a choice you personally have to make and you don't want to make a mistake because your best friend persuaded you into it. You need to examine your motives for accepting your friend's advice on the most important decision you'll ever make. Is it what you wanted to hear? Remember when you get to judgement day, your friend will not be taking the rap for you because you have your own brain and heart and conscience to blame.  

There's no point in dividing your life into spiritual and physical as the two go together and there is one ultimate reality that encompasses both.

If the Bible doesn't mean what it says then you are not responsible for ignoring or reinterpreting it. The thing is why should it not mean what it says? Why would a day not be a day -especially if it has a morning and an evening attached to it? Why would God not have created man separate from the animals just like the Bible tells us he did? The thing is that it is convenient to reinterpret things to include evolution and billions of years because that way you can say you never knew that it meant what it said because you knew that evolution was true and that is why you were confused! I think you need to choose whether plain words are the tools we use for communication and as such can be understood or whether it's all coded and we can make it mean whatever 'science' and men's opinions say it means.    


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:53 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My opinion on this one is that believing in evolution is not a sin because we are all indoctrinated into it from cradle to grave in this world. The problem is that believing in evolution tends to lead to agnosticism because the two positions (creation and evolution) contradict one another.


There's evidence to test that idea.  Glenn Morton was a YE creationist, a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research graduate school.   Here's his story:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.


Young Earth Creationism is a very effective athiest-maker.   Morton, BTW, was an exception.  He did not become an atheist, and is now a theistic evolutionist.    But many are not so lucky.   YE creationism will have much to answer for at the Judgement.

If it doesn't affect you that way then chances are you may be missing the point of the gospel message. Death came through sin and nowhere does it specify spiritual death only.


In Genesis.   God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years after.   If God was telling the truth, it wasn't a physical death.

There's no point in dividing your life into spiritual and physical as the two go together and there is one ultimate reality that encompasses both.


But there is physical death and spiritual death, which are not the same.   As God points out in Genesis.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 07:36 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 07:36 AM on September 10, 2009 :
There's evidence to test that idea.  Glenn Morton was a YE creationist, a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research graduate school.   Here's his story:...

"And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity.  I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."

Young Earth Creationism is a very effective athiest-maker.   Morton, BTW, was an exception.  He did not become an atheist, and is now a theistic evolutionist.    But many are not so lucky.   YE creationism will have much to answer for at the Judgement.


The idea of YEC being a very effective athiest maker was talked about a little while ago. Someone posted a poll on YEC percentage of freshmen going into college and seniors graduating from college. I can't recall the numbers but it was a tremendous drop showing how many YEC after getting a college education leave the faith completely. Being a college student myself I can attest first hand that YEC doesn't help people convert to Christianity, or keep people in the faith. Although I have meet exceptions, they are of the minority. I think a big turnoff to students who don't take a lot science courses are the crazy preachers who come to campus to preach hate in hand with YEC, most of them can't string a coherent thought together.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 08:59 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:53 AM on September 10, 2009 :
Death came through sin and nowhere does it specify spiritual death only. From the time sin came into the world, people started to die which doesn't mean they dropped down immediately but that the process began (mutation?), the curse on all things. I think the law of entropy was set in motion at that point and that that was the curse which results in death. Everything is wearing down and ultimately there will be no heat left, no energy transfer just cold nothing.



A very un-biblical opinion.

Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


How could the creatures be fruitful and multiply without eating?

As Answers in Genesis says:

Answers We Don't Use

Arguments that should never be used

2.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:00 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years after.


Well perhaps spiritual death was instant and physical death is a consequence therof. Still physical death then comes from spiritual death and there would be no physical or spiritual death if there was no sin. Jesus Christ came to conquer 'death' - so obviously death of any kind was not the original plan and only came as a consequence of sin.

That means that there was no death before Adam while evolution would have us believe that death was a natural part of life rather than the consequence of sin and paid for at the cross. Why bother to die for us to conquer death and sin if all death is, is a natural part of life on this earth? Do you see what this evolution story does to the gospel?

The devil himself couldn't have come up with a cleverer deception, huh?

A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.


Melodrama at its best. These guys sure don't sound very well informed.

You mean to tell me that after these poor victims of creationist imagination came out of this, they felt obligated to give God a miss altogether?! Well if that's the case, they didn't ever know God or anything about God because if you rely on man's word about anything in this life you're going to be very demoralized. Imagine if I found that somebody at church lied to me (whether intentionally or unintentionally) -would I wail at God and then pretend that God didn't exist? Would I punish God for that person by moving into atheist mode. The devil uses those sorts of people all the time and the only people that give up on God because of them are the ones that were already waiting for an excuse to walk away from God.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:00 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Someone posted a poll on YEC percentage of freshmen going into college and seniors graduating from college. I can't recall the numbers but it was a tremendous drop showing how many YEC after getting a college education leave the faith completely.


You're right about that -I've heard the figures as well. The problem is you're getting the wrong end of the stick. They don't leave the faith because of there being anything wrong with YEC, they leave the faith when they are introduced to evolution (or have it shoved down their throats by strong proselytizers of the new religion) and do not know how to defend their beliefs scientifically.
The problem is on both sides in other words. I do not believe one should let a YEC child out in the world unprepared for the challenge. Not only that, I believe they should be fully educated in evolution so that they know exactly what they will encounter and what their defense will be. I have heard that there are schools in my country that won't allow evolution into the classroom but that is silly. When should the child hear about it? That's a recipe for disaster. They should be educated about every false cult and religion out there, what they say and on who's authority.

I think a big turnoff to students who don't take a lot science courses are the crazy preachers who come to campus to preach hate in hand with YEC, most of them can't string a coherent thought together.


Never met any of those, thank goodness!I think you're making an ugly generalization though and I really hope you're not flat out lying. Can you give me a name of one that preaches 'hate' in hand? And can you give me the name of one incoherent one that can't string a coherent sentence together? -I'm really very interested to look them up and find out about this since I've never heard that sort of accusation yet.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:18 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A very un-biblical opinion.


Well I'm sorry but it makes sense to me. I did say it was my opinion though.

How could the creatures be fruitful and multiply without eating?


Why weren't they eating? What has eating or not eating got to do with the fall? Why would eating or digestion be different before or after the fall? What is the point here? I'm missing this one, please fill me in here.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:09 PM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:09 PM on September 10, 2009 :
Why weren't they eating? What has eating or not eating got to do with the fall? Why would eating or digestion be different before or after the fall? What is the point here? I'm missing this one, please fill me in here.


Without the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respiration, digestion, reproduction, etc. are not possible, as AiG points out.  Likewise the sun and stars won't shine.


(Edited by Apoapsis 9/10/2009 at 1:35 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:26 PM on September 10, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi fencer and yehren,

Yeah I didn't mean we can't judge what is right and wrong--I personally am very careful about saying someone will go to hell.  I would rather tell them according to scripture habitual willful sin will send you to hell.  The goal is to reach for me, so there are gentler ways to say the same thing.  people can add two and two if you teach them the word.

Yehren, I'm having trouble understanding how evolution does not rule out Adam and Eve.  

I agree it was spiritual death, but it was also physical death because of the tree of life that they had eaten from in the garden.  After they sinned God would not allow them to eat of it.

Genesis 3:22
22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”  23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden

Evolution requires death before Adam.  Also if Adam was a result of evolution, who was his a father --great grandfather, etc?  And then why is Adam even important to our knowledge if he did not bring in sin and death?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:00 PM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren, I'm having trouble understanding how evolution does not rule out Adam and Eve.


I can't see how it does rule them out.  Can you explain?

I agree it was spiritual death, but it was also physical death because of the tree of life that they had eaten from in the garden.  After they sinned God would not allow them to eat of it.


Possible.   Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve are not immortal, and at one point, God expresses concern that they might become so.

So they were created to die, but maybe in the garden they would have been kept from dying by His grace.

I think not.  In some fashion He knew what would happen, and created everything that way anyhow.

Evolution requires death before Adam.


Physical death.  Not spiritual death.   That is what Adam brought into the world.

Also if Adam was a result of evolution, who was his a father --great grandfather, etc?


Hard to say.   We don't even know for sure which species Adam was.  If it was H. erectus rather than H. ergaster, would it matter?

And then why is Adam even important to our knowledge if he did not bring in sin and death?


But he did.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 9:46 PM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:18 AM on September 10, 2009 :
You're right about that -I've heard the figures as well. The problem is you're getting the wrong end of the stick. They don't leave the faith because of there being anything wrong with YEC, they leave the faith when they are introduced to evolution (or have it shoved down their throats by strong proselytizers of the new religion) and do not know how to defend their beliefs scientifically.


I don't think science has too much to do with it, but YEC somewhat makes it an issue by going against the scientific community, turning it into a bigger issue than it needs to be. From what I've seen most of the atheists are atheist because of theological and philosophical reasons. Science, in a way, somewhat justifies their belief in that with each scientific discovery the God they view gets smaller and smaller.

The problem is on both sides in other words. I do not believe one should let a YEC child out in the world unprepared for the challenge. Not only that, I believe they should be fully educated in evolution so that they know exactly what they will encounter and what their defense will be. I have heard that there are schools in my country that won't allow evolution into the classroom but that is silly. When should the child hear about it? That's a recipe for disaster. They should be educated about every false cult and religion out there, what they say and on who's authority.


While I agree that ideally children should be taught the main positions of important topics, but to teach them every false view in the world today is non-sensible. Too much will be focused on falsehoods rather than teaching them what they need to know, how to think, and how to apply knowledge to the real world. I think the best thing the K-12 system can do is to teach kids how to think and give them a strong foundation in things like science, mathematics, history, english, religion and politics. So when they are confronted with a problem they have a good foundation of knowledge and are able to adequately research the topic and come to a sound conclusion.

Never met any of those, thank goodness!I think you're making an ugly generalization though and I really hope you're not flat out lying. Can you give me a name of one that preaches 'hate' in hand? And can you give me the name of one incoherent one that can't string a coherent sentence together? -I'm really very interested to look them up and find out about this since I've never heard that sort of accusation yet.


Sure, one of the more famous ones is brother Micah Armstrong. Oddly enough he actually came to my campus today! I've seen him last year, and a few other people as well. You can find him on youtube. Here is one of his videos; keep in mind that most of the videos posted are more mellow than a lot of his speeches. He has been hit by students before because of the things that he says and does. And a lot of the cops that are there allow a lot of leniency when it comes to students acting out.

Brother Micah on youtube

I'm not sure exactly what all is on this video, but he basically comes out to campuses, tells everyone that they are going to hell. He calls all the women on campus whores, and when he talks to them he doesn't say their name, but calls them women or lady in a derogatory manner. However, he, his church and some important figures in Christianity are the only ones going to heaven. All Catholics are going to Hell, most protestants and Jews are going to Hell. And of course anyone not in the Judeo-Christian religion is in Hell. His list of people in Hell includes Gandhi, Mother Teressa, Martin Luther king, Bob Marley and John Lennon. Any music other than gospel music is sinful music, if you show your knees you're going to Hell, if you smoke you're going to Hell. He claims that he no longer sins and therefore he has the right to judge everyone else. Now combine all that with YEC, and that is what you get. You can imagine that the student body doesn't like him, or those who preach the same way.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:30 AM on September 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...and do not know how to defend their beliefs scientifically.
I don't think science has too much to do with it


Well in that respect you would be wrong. It has everything to do with evidence in science, opposing evidence; the stuff that scientists should not be ignoring while they are busy favouring their bias.

but YEC somewhat makes it an issue by going against the scientific community


A lot of YECs are part of the scientific community -they just don't agree with the consensus for evidential reasons that evos prefer to ignore.

turning it into a bigger issue than it needs to be.


If people like Galileo and Copernicus hadn't gone against the prevailing bias of their time, we would still think all sorts of incorrect things.
Opposition is good and evos need to deal with it, not try to sweep it under the carpet and label it 'religion' in order to get rid of it. Their religion is the one opposed to the evidence and they refuse to see it.

Science, in a way, somewhat justifies their belief in that with each scientific discovery the God they view gets smaller and smaller.


Please explain this.

While I agree that ideally children should be taught the main positions of important topics, but to teach them every false view in the world today is non-sensible.


That's just a dodge Fencer. We're not suggesting teaching any false religion or any false view. We are suggesting that evidence for and against evolution should be taught, and that the evidence against evolution should not be hidden. A false impression is given if opposing evidence is ignored. Evos seem to imagine that they need to protect everyone from coming to the wrong conclusion - their conclusion. That's pretty cultic thinking and should have no place in science.

Too much will be focused on falsehoods rather than teaching them what they need to know, how to think, and how to apply knowledge to the real world.


You mean we'd waste the time needed to forcefeed evolution exclusively into each child? How sad. How do you teach a child to think critically if all you're teaching them is what to think? That's called indoctrination, not education.

So when they are confronted with a problem they have a good foundation of knowledge and are able to adequately research the topic and come to a sound conclusion.


That's what we'd like but that is precisely what evolutionists do not want to allow. Like I say, they are scared that people will not come to the correct conclusions if they are not offered their exclusive view unopposed.

Sure, one of the more famous ones is brother Micah Armstrong.


Never heard of him.

He has been hit by students before because of the things that he says and does.


Aah democracy rules and some are freer than others to say what they think. Why don't those violent students just leave the meeting? I suppose they felt compelled to force their view on Brother Micah. Did Brother Micah fight back? Was he allowed to?
Whatever - I have fortunately only been exposed to reasonable and professional people on the YEC side and if I got a video of Brother Micah and he was preaching hate and being objectionable, I'd feel free to switch him off. Everyone has that right. But use of force??? Sounds like their parents dragged them up.

And a lot of the cops that are there allow a lot of leniency when it comes to students acting out.


Wow, that sounds like our country. We had municipal strikes lately where the garbage collectors went out and trashed all the towns and cities -found garbage and littered the cities. They also threw glass bottles at cars and beat up white people that tried to remove larger pieces of glass from the roads to prevent theirs and other peoples’ tyres being punctured. The cops allowed a lot of leniency and any radical bombastic protester was allowed to beat up (en masse) anybody they chose to.(Of course anyone who opposed them was fair game.) Eventually our new president put a stop to it by telling those who ruled by fear that they could spend 3 months in jail if they were caught undermining other people’s rights in the streets. Why did he take so long was my question and why did any cops questioned say the exact same words “We’re not allowed to aggravate them.” I’m not sure that aggravate was the correct word but it’s something like that. Some surely are freer to have their views than others in democracies.

However, he, his church and some important figures in Christianity are the only ones going to heaven.


Well does he follow what the Bible says on those issues or does he just make it up, because then he belongs to a cult. If the truth is not in the Bible then where is it? Should we rely on men to tell us what it says or should we just read it ourselves?
Wherever there's a man speaking on God's behalf, there's a potential problem. That's why we have the Bible - to check it out for ourselves. Every cult has a man changing the clear pronouncements of the Bible for his own benefit. In the old days, they refused to translate the Bible because they didn't want the commoner to read it. They wanted to have holy sway over what everybody was supposed to believe and who they should follow. It’s called power and it’s what men do to other men. The best and safest is to read it for yourself and ask God to help you to understand it the way he wants you to understand it. At least then you know you tried and God knows your heart because He made you after all.

Any music other than gospel music is sinful music, if you show your knees you're going to Hell, if you smoke you're going to Hell.


I'd just leave the meeting. Why beat the man up? If he has nothing to say of any value, perhaps nobody should support him by being there. On the other hand, nobody should be scared to apply their own brain to what they hear there.  

He claims that he no longer sins and therefore he has the right to judge everyone else.


Even people who are saved sin so he really is on the wrong track but nobody needs to beat him up. Ignoring him and not attending the meeting makes far more sense. Some people just look for fights and dump other issues of their own on people that have dumb opinions that are better ignored.

Now combine all that with YEC, and that is what you get. You can imagine that the student body doesn't like him, or those who preach the same way.


That’s one way of making sure YEC is inconsequential. Should I ignore you altogether if you have one dumb opinion on one subject? If an evolutionist has a dumb opinion on one aspect of life, should I reject evolution on that evidence of his irrationality on some other topic? I could use it as an excuse I suppose but it would say nothing about evolution per se. There are lots of annoying, radical, hard assed evolutionists out there as well you know but they fortunately have no effect on the evidence.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:56 AM on September 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer -

From your description, and watching the first minute of the video, Micah Armstrong sounds like a very unpleasant person.  And mentally unhealthy too!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:39 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 9:46 PM on September 10, 2009 :
Yehren, I'm having trouble understanding how evolution does not rule out Adam and Eve.


I can't see how it does rule them out.  Can you explain?





Yes, as you know the Old and New Testament teaches that physical death came into the world  through Adam.

Evolution says evolution brought death into the world--whenever the first creature died death was in the world, and subsequently all things have died.

So Adam, if he was real (and he was I believe) becomes just a link in the chain of death and not the initiator.  So if you believe that Adam had a father then his father died.  Then you believe in a different Adam that the Bible teaches and have to come up with some kind of allegorical explanation for the creation story--including:

1)That God created Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. (an allegory)

2)That God gave man a soul.  (Gen. 2:7--an allegory)

3)That they were the first to sin. (allegory)

4)That their children obviously inherited a sinful nature from their parents, because they sacrificed to God--indicating a consciousness of sin.  This is the what caused Cain to become jealous of Abel and kill him. (allegory)

(Edited by AFJ 9/12/2009 at 11:42 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:53 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The tale of Adam and Eve is a Creation myth.  They were not real people!  

Why do people have such a hard time with the concept of death?  Why is there this need to think that there is an immortal spirit?  I understand that it is painful to lose a loved one.  The hope that you'll be together some day in a better world is comforting, but its not realistic.  

Death makes way for new life.  It's as simple as that.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:19 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The tale of Adam and Eve is a Creation myth. They were not real people!


In your considered opinion. What if they were?
It is evolution that insists that people evolved from an ape-like ancestor that makes this so hard for you to believe and yet the Bible documents many historical events that are verifiable. Obviously not all - for instance the flood would have gotten rid of the garden of Eden and the rivers that flowed out from the garden but there are many other historical events in the Bible that have been proven to be true history, so you can believe that Adam and Eve were not real but that is just a belief.

I do however understand your horror at the thought though; I was quite shocked at the suggestion that they were real people once upon a time; but then I grew up on the evo diet as well and it bends your brain cells and gives you psychological blindness so it is not surprising that I was horrified.

Why do people have such a hard time with the concept of death?


You think that this is all about having a hard time with death but actually it is about wanting the truth, not the lie. We're all going to die in any case, no matter what we believe.

Why is there this need to think that there is an immortal spirit?


Why is there this need to deny that it is possible? Our thoughts are not material things, where do they come from and where do they go when we die? Maybe you're the one that's wrong to imagine that our thoughts come from a 3 pound piece of nervous tissue exclusively.

I understand that it is painful to lose a loved one.  The hope that you'll be together some day in a better world is comforting, but its not realistic.


But you don't know that? How would you know whether it is realistic or not? Perhaps you're the one that's being 'wilfully blind' as it says in the Bible. Men don't like to retain the knowledge of God -it says that in the Bible -maybe that's why they invent things like evolution.

Death makes way for new life.  It's as simple as that.


Yes, and life has very little value in that case. I wouldn't mind if I thought it was true but I think it's a lie and I believe that it is specifically designed to keep people in the dark about their creator until it's too late.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:15 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

In your considered opinion. What if they were?

What if they (Adam & Eve) were?  What?  Real?  I put Adam & Eve in the same category as Goldilocks and the Three Bears.  


It is evolution that insists that people evolved from an ape-like ancestor that makes this so hard for you to believe


There is strong and compelling evidence that H. sapiens did have an ape ancestor.  Read the scientific literature for yourself.

Adam & Eve - no evidence for the tales in Genesis at all.  All you have is some book that you take at literal value because... hmmm, why DO you take it literally anyway, Lester?  I would be curious to hear your answer.


yet the Bible documents many historical events that are verifiable.


Such as?  I'm waiting for you to present your verifiable evidence of the Bible, particularly of the Genesis myths.  Heck, I would like to see any verifiable evidence of the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed.


Obviously not all - for instance the flood would have gotten rid of the garden of Eden and the rivers that flowed out from the garden


yes, obviously.


but there are many other historical events in the Bible that have been proven to be true history, so you can believe that Adam and Eve were not real but that is just a belief.


Well, I would like to see some of this verifiable evidence that you keep talking about.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:40 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:40 AM on September 13, 2009 :
Lester

In your considered opinion. What if they were?

What if they (Adam & Eve) were?  What?  Real?  I put Adam & Eve in the same category as Goldilocks and the Three Bears.  


It is evolution that insists that people evolved from an ape-like ancestor that makes this so hard for you to believe


There is strong and compelling evidence that H. sapiens did have an ape ancestor.  Read the scientific literature for yourself.

Adam & Eve - no evidence for the tales in Genesis at all.  All you have is some book that you take at literal value because... hmmm, why DO you take it literally anyway, Lester?  I would be curious to hear your answer.


yet the Bible documents many historical events that are verifiable.


Such as?  I'm waiting for you to present your verifiable evidence of the Bible, particularly of the Genesis myths.  Heck, I would like to see any verifiable evidence of the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed.


Obviously not all - for instance the flood would have gotten rid of the garden of Eden and the rivers that flowed out from the garden


yes, obviously.


but there are many other historical events in the Bible that have been proven to be true history, so you can believe that Adam and Eve were not real but that is just a belief.


Well, I would like to see some of this verifiable evidence that you keep talking about.




Orion the truth is there are many verifiable archaeological finds in Israel particularly that would support (I do not say prove) the scriptural writings as far as background and customs.  While this does not prove say that the Red Sea parted, it does support the historicity of the background setting of the Bible.

For instance, many of the names of gods of other countries, names of leaders, social customs and wars are written about in other ancient writings.  Allusions to Israel and certain kings of Israel are  in other ancient writings.

Josephus, a non-Christian Jewish historian writes about Jesus, his huge following, and what was in his perception a political rebellion against the Jewish leaders.

All you have to do is get a Thompson Chain Reference Bible.  It has an extensive section in the back of what are to be considered archaeological finds which would support scripture--including the Dead Sea scrolls.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:23 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AF3 - sure, there are many archaeological finds relating to Biblical times.  I don't dispute that there are some concrete historical and geographic facts in the Bible.  The writers of the Bible wrote of what they knew of during their day.  Some of it had a historical basis, I'm sure.  They would say that such and such happened during the reign of so and so.  But I think they also relied on beliefs and tales that were passed down, or came from other cultures.  Civilizations grew up along the great rivers - rivers flood periodically.  Tales of a particularly nasty flood would get passed down from generation to generation.  Tales have a tendancy to expand beyond reality.  The tale of the Flood in the Bible perhaps had such origins.  The writers tied it in with a vengeful God, with some morality thrown in, and poof... legend turned to historical fact!  

Except that later, along with the rise of science and the inquiry of reason, there is no evidence to find that such a world-wide flood ever took place.  Not to mention the immense  logistical problems of Noah's Ark and the subsequent distribution of plants and animals.

Every culture has a need to know where they came from, what were their origins.  The tales from Genesis are just one of many hundreds of such tales.  The writers of the Bible wrote down what were the beliefs of their times.

But knowledge and our understanding of the world around us has advanced forward.  Not everyone likes what is discovered, especially if it contradicts strong traditional beliefs.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:23 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:56 AM on September 12, 2009 :
A lot of YECs are part of the scientific community -they just don't agree with the consensus for evidential reasons that evos prefer to ignore.


I think they total 0.02% of all scientists today, or something like that.

If people like Galileo and Copernicus hadn't gone against the prevailing bias of their time, we would still think all sorts of incorrect things.
Opposition is good and evos need to deal with it, not try to sweep it under the carpet and label it 'religion' in order to get rid of it. Their religion is the one opposed to the evidence and they refuse to see it.


The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years, if there is any evidence to the contrary than scientists will deal with them. The problem is there is no legitimate scientific reason to throw out evolution, let alone input creationism in its stead.

Science, in a way, somewhat justifies their belief in that with each scientific discovery the God they view gets smaller and smaller.


Please explain this.


Some atheists I know say in the past we didn't know or understand X, so people contributed X to God. Now that we understand X God is no longer a part of the equation so God is diminished. It is essentially a God of the gaps argument against the belief in God. But I think they hit on a very important issue, just because we don't know something doesn't mean it is supernatural, it is just an unknown. Just today one of my friends was saying how in the future we will no everything, and there will be no more room for God.

That's just a dodge Fencer. We're not suggesting teaching any false religion or any false view. We are suggesting that evidence for and against evolution should be taught, and that the evidence against evolution should not be hidden.


And how do you teach the evidence against evolution without teaching creationism, or vice versa? In order to teach people why idea X is wrong you first have to teach what it is.

A false impression is given if opposing evidence is ignored. Evos seem to imagine that they need to protect everyone from coming to the wrong conclusion - their conclusion. That's pretty cultic thinking and should have no place in science.


I don't want people to teach the geocentric model in parallel to the heliocentric model as a valid alternative, does that make my conclusion about the solar system cultic thinking? Over 99% of contemporary scientists agree with evolution, why should we use class time to teach something not even 1% of professionals in the field agree with?  

You mean we'd waste the time needed to forcefeed evolution exclusively into each child? How sad. How do you teach a child to think critically if all you're teaching them is what to think? That's called indoctrination, not education.


In chemistry they "indoctrinate" you into oxygen theory over the phlogiston theory, but I doubt you will care about that.

That's what we'd like but that is precisely what evolutionists do not want to allow. Like I say, they are scared that people will not come to the correct conclusions if they are not offered their exclusive view unopposed.


I think a lot of fear comes from the fact that religious preference stunted scientific growth, and they fear that by letting creationism run unchecked it will destroy science. Our modern society is built on science, and when people feel that you are taking it away they will fight for it.

He has been hit by students before because of the things that he says and does.


Aah democracy rules and some are freer than others to say what they think. Why don't those violent students just leave the meeting? I suppose they felt compelled to force their view on Brother Micah. Did Brother Micah fight back? Was he allowed to?


I didn't witnessed him being assaulted, so I can't say exactly what happened. I have seen people get in his face and he yells right back at them. He, and other preachers, preach outside in the center of campus near the main building, so just about everyone has a chance to hear it. So imagine just walking to class and you have to go near him, and whenever you do he calls you a whore, masturbater, whatever he is in the mood for, and you're going to hell for it. It makes for a very pleasant walk to your next class.

And a lot of the cops that are there allow a lot of leniency when it comes to students acting out.


Some surely are freer to have their views than others in democracies.


His first amendment right is not violated, he is still able to get up in a public place and preach. Only when someone steals his Bible or hat, or physically assaults him do the cops get involved, but they are there the whole time.

Well does he follow what the Bible says on those issues or does he just make it up, because then he belongs to a cult.


Well, he claims it all comes from the Bible, but it seems that you need to be sinless to get into heaven. He's not talking about Jesus being in your heart so you are forgiven, he is saying that unless you stop all sinning you are going to hell.

If the truth is not in the Bible then where is it? Should we rely on men to tell us what it says or should we just read it ourselves?


There are certain cultural aspects to the Bible that must be respected, and if not than reading it yourself will give you the wrong interpretation. It is not a straight up either or, but a combination.

In the old days, they refused to translate the Bible because they didn't want the commoner to read it. They wanted to have holy sway over what everybody was supposed to believe and who they should follow. It’s called power and it’s what men do to other men. The best and safest is to read it for yourself and ask God to help you to understand it the way he wants you to understand it. At least then you know you tried and God knows your heart because He made you after all.


If all you do is just read it, you will never understand it, the context of the scripture is key in how you read it. I can understand why they didn't want the common person to read the Bible, because it is so complex that the average person could never have understood it, and most of them probably wouldn't have been able to read it. Now that literacy is no longer a problem and everyone has basic education it is not so much a concern.

I'd just leave the meeting. Why beat the man up? If he has nothing to say of any value, perhaps nobody should support him by being there. On the other hand, nobody should be scared to apply their own brain to what they hear there.


I would say the majority of people who attend are atheist, agnostic or pagan. They're there to bash him and mock him, others are Christians, Jews and Muslims who somewhat debate him on what he is saying, and the others just stand and laugh at him.  

Even people who are saved sin so he really is on the wrong track but nobody needs to beat him up. Ignoring him and not attending the meeting makes far more sense. Some people just look for fights and dump other issues of their own on people that have dumb opinions that are better ignored.


I agree that just leaving is a good idea, but many Christians see him as giving Christianity a bad name and feel that they need to defend Christianity from the falsehoods that he preaches.

That’s one way of making sure YEC is inconsequential. Should I ignore you altogether if you have one dumb opinion on one subject?


That wasn't the point I wanted to get across, but you should know that YEC isn't popular among college students. And when you get a preacher who preaches the way he does and adheres to YEC, it is like open season on Christians week.

There are lots of annoying, radical, hard assed evolutionists out there as well you know but they fortunately have no effect on the evidence.


And neither do crazy preachers like brother Micah, but that doesn't change the fact that people are influenced by what others say. Depending on the influence, it can be good or bad for the message being projected. Unfortunately for Micah, I feel that he has a very negative influence on how people around college campuses view Christianity, so I feel that he is doing more harm than good.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:07 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry that I havent read the entire thread yet.
but as I was reading I came across this and thought I should speak up:
Quote from AFJ at 9:00 PM on September 9, 2009 :
First of all.  No man is supposed to judge another man.  Matthew 7:1  Do not judge or you will be judged.


I believe that AFJ (and many other who agree with him) have misinterpreted this passage.
because Matthew 7:1 is quoted alone it is taken out of context.
if you read on to Matthew 7:2 it says
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

so Matthew is not telling us 'not' to judge others. But is warning us about HOW we judge others.
in fact the Bible is ENCOURAGES us to judge others. often saying things like "even the pagans do" such and such ..."are you not better than the pagans?"

and Jesus criticises the Pharisees constantly. the Pharisees being people (usually Jewish of origin at that time) who followed the law trying to be perfect Christians, But then looked down on everyone else as inferior


I'll finish off by saying
The Bible is the best reference for all questions about Christianity


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:48 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know if you can help me AE but somewhere in the Bible it says we must judge all things to determine whether they are from God or not. That sort of judging is important since the Bible is the ultimate authority as the Word of God.

So if some Christian offends you Fencer, by saying you're going to hell, the only way to check if it's true is to look in the Bible and see what it says about salvation. If we can't rely on the Bible, then what should we rely on? That's why Biblical inerrancy is a big issue.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and salvation is through the cross. No church can get you there and any church that asserts something not in the Bible should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:14 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

I think they total 0.02% of all scientists today, or something like that.


I wonder. I know scientists in general have had more than their fair share of brainwashing and they believe in evolution often despite the fact that most of them don’t actually work in the evolution field as such.
According to a Gallup poll of May 2006 that I have here only 13% of Americans believe in evolution where God plays no part in it. 36% believe evolution did occur but that God guided the process and 46% believe that God created man less than 10 000 years ago. So I wonder if your percentage could be right.

Somehow I doubt it though I have no doubt that the percentage of scientists believing in evolution compared to the general population would be high but that’s like saying that the majority of Roman Catholics believe that the pope is intermediate between them and God. That’s what they’ve been taught to believe so of course the percentage that believe it would be high.

The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years, if there is any evidence to the contrary than scientists will deal with them.


They don’t deal with the lack of gradualism in the fossil record, they make excuses for it. They don’t deal with living fossils, they make excuses for them. They don’t deal with historical stories of humans and dragons, they ignore it. They don’t deal with blood elements in T.Rex bones, they excuse it and explain it away, some even think that its amazing that blood elements lasted for 63 million years odd. That is scrambled egg brain type reasoning.There are far too many examples where scientists don’t deal with the falsifying evidence, instead they make up more ‘plausible’ stories.

The problem is there is no legitimate scientific reason to throw out evolution, let alone input creationism in its stead.


Well there’s no good reason not to present ID at least, rather than no alternative especially since evolution is far from proven. It is just generally accepted by brainwashed scientists and forced upon the general populace from cradle to grave. Evolutionary ‘Science’ appears to be the new church of the world.

But I think they hit on a very important issue, just because we don't know something doesn't mean it is supernatural, it is just an unknown.


Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should be allowed to substitute a naturalistic evolutionary plausible story in the place of true knowledge.

Just today one of my friends was saying how in the future we will no everything, and there will be no more room for God.


Or in other words, we will be like God –sounds like something the snake said to Adam and Eve don’t you think. He’s still telling the same lies and people are still listening. I wonder why –maybe it’s because they have let evolution replace the Bible as the true history of the world. That snake’s just as clever as he ever was.
Evolution sounds just like something he would have invented to keep men from listening to the truth.

And how do you teach the evidence against evolution without teaching creationism, or vice versa? In order to teach people why idea X is wrong you first have to teach what it is.


Well you don’t have to teach creationism as such in the science classroom but when you teach evolution as shown by embryos, you should also teach that Haeckel was convicted of fraud for making those embryos look like they didn’t look in support of evolution. When you teach paleontology, you should mention the problems with the Cambrian explosion, the gaps that seem to remain no matter how many billions of fossils we find; the problems with producing DNA by natural means; the fact that proteins don’t form spontaneously in a laboratory; the different ways that bones of dead things can be interpreted depending on your preconceptions (eg ape men). So many scientific evidences that should at the very least be mentioned. Why should one religion be favoured? There are two options –life appeared spontaneously by natural processes or life was created. Why not give the evidences for those two options without speaking of any particular religion?

In chemistry they "indoctrinate" you into oxygen theory over the phlogiston theory, but I doubt you will care about that.


Chemistry is quite different to evolution. Chemical principles can be demonstrated, observed, repeated. Evolution cannot.

I think a lot of fear comes from the fact that religious preference stunted scientific growth, and they fear that by letting creationism run unchecked it will destroy science.


Christians started all the modern fields of science. Evolution never got anybody anywhere. It is because there is a creator that science can be counted upon to give consistent answers. Christianity never stunted scientific growth –that’s just what you’ve been told to believe.

Our modern society is built on science, and when people feel that you are taking it away they will fight for it.


And real science is observable and repeatable –something which can’t be said for evolution. Plausible stories cannot replace reality and cannot be called science.

Well, he claims it all comes from the Bible, but it seems that you need to be sinless to get into heaven.


Nobody is sinless. But you do need somebody to take your punishment because God is just and he can’t just overlook your sins. That’s the whole point of Jesus Christ coming to earth.




(Edited by Lester10 9/16/2009 at 05:42 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:36 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wonder. I know scientists in general have had more than their fair share of brainwashing and they believe in evolution often despite the fact that most of them don’t actually work in the evolution field as such.


Turns out that those who actually work in biology are much more likely to accept evolution than non-biologists.  Have you not noticed that those lists of "scientists who don't like evolution" are full of non-biologists?

Guess why.

According to a Gallup poll of May 2006 that I have here only 13% of Americans believe in evolution where God plays no part in it. 36% believe evolution did occur but that God guided the process and 46% believe that God created man less than 10 000 years ago.


Hmmm... a majority of Americans accept evolution.  That's a relatively new phenomenon.  A bigger majority of scientists realize evolution is true, of course, and many of us are theists.

but that’s like saying that the majority of Roman Catholics believe that the pope is intermediate between them and God.


I doubt that.  He is God's vicar, but not "intermediate" between humans and God.  He, like Peter, his predecessor, is merely God's servant.

They don’t deal with the lack of gradualism in the fossil record, they make excuses for it.


Let's test that.   Name me two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's an intermediate between them.

They don’t deal with living fossils, they make excuses for them.


We can test that.   Show us a "living fossil" , and we'll see if it fits into an evolutionary progression.

They don’t deal with historical stories of humans and dragons, they ignore it.


They don't deal with historical stories of boogymen for the same reason.  

They don’t deal with blood elements in T.Rex bones, they excuse it and explain it away


Not elements.  Compounds.  Heme.  A fragment of hemoglobin.   And when it was tested, it was closer to bird heme than it is to modern reptiles.   Just what evolutionary theory predicted.

There are far too many examples where scientists don’t deal with the falsifying evidence, instead they make up more ‘plausible’ stories.


Now would be a good time to trot out the evidence for it, then.   Let's see how plausible your stories are.

Chemistry is quite different to evolution. Chemical principles can be demonstrated, observed, repeated. Evolution cannot.


Natural selection and descent with modification is observed everywhere.   New species are so well documented, even most creationists now admit they evolve.

Christians started all the modern fields of science.


If so, the ancient Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, and Romans were all Christians, as were Muslims.  

Would you like to learn about some of that?

Evolution never got anybody anywhere.


Antibiotic protocols are saving lives today.   And they are based on evolutionary theory.  The Green Revolution that put off famine in the 60s and 70s was based on evolutionary theory.

At some point, Lester, you're going to have to make some kind of accomodation with God and His creation.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 5:45 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution never got anybody anywhere.

Antibiotic protocols are saving lives today.   And they are based on evolutionary theory.  The Green Revolution that put off famine in the 60s and 70s was based on evolutionary theory.



and here are just some of the things Christianity has don't for the word:
- the entire modern day schooling system can be traced back in origin to Christian monasteries (where monks where taught to read and write in order to copy the Bible)
- the translation of almost every indigenous languages into orthodox languages (English/ Latin/ French) is as a direct result of the bible being translated into that language.
- most charities in existence where started by a Christian movement (or a tax fraud)
- modern moral values where heavily influenced by the presence of the Roman catholic church in Europe


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:54 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:36 AM on September 16, 2009 :
I wonder. I know scientists in general have had more than their fair share of brainwashing and they believe in evolution often despite the fact that most of them don’t actually work in the evolution field as such.


By brainwashing do you mean edumacation on the scientific method and evilution? As Yehren said, the more biology you have the more likely you are to accept evolution. Those "scientists" that don't are usually people with degrees in engineering, chemistry, and the like that don't have too much to do with evolution.

According to a Gallup poll of May 2006 that I have here only 13% of Americans believe in evolution where God plays no part in it. 36% believe evolution did occur but that God guided the process and 46% believe that God created man less than 10 000 years ago. So I wonder if your percentage could be right.


Where did the last 5% go? The "I don't know" category? Which is perfectly fine, and always a safe response if you don't have the knowledge to say one way or the other. In any case, I'm positive that the scientific community has over 99% acceptance of evolution. Even if my 99.98% is off a little.

Somehow I doubt it though I have no doubt that the percentage of scientists believing in evolution compared to the general population would be high but that’s like saying that the majority of Roman Catholics believe that the pope is intermediate between them and God. That’s what they’ve been taught to believe so of course the percentage that believe it would be high.


Never mind scientists are also taught to be open minded when it comes to evidence, and many of them are taught to think rationally and so on.

They don’t deal with the lack of gradualism in the fossil record, they make excuses for it. They don’t deal with living fossils, they make excuses for them. They don’t deal with historical stories of humans and dragons, they ignore it. They don’t deal with blood elements in T.Rex bones, they excuse it and explain it away, some even think that its amazing that blood elements lasted for 63 million years odd. That is scrambled egg brain type reasoning.There are far too many examples where scientists don’t deal with the falsifying evidence, instead they make up more ‘plausible’ stories.


Now let's caste aside empty words and present some hard core evidence to support these claims you've made.

Well there’s no good reason not to present ID at least, rather than no alternative especially since evolution is far from proven. It is just generally accepted by brainwashed scientists and forced upon the general populace from cradle to grave. Evolutionary ‘Science’ appears to be the new church of the world.


ID was presented and dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience, and then dismissed again in 2004 (I think) in the Dover trial by the legal system. I would also like to see how evolution is a religion, and the "new church of the world."

Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should be allowed to substitute a naturalistic evolutionary plausible story in the place of true knowledge.


What don't we know that can be explained by the creation model, beyond God did it the end.

Or in other words, we will be like God –sounds like something the snake said to Adam and Eve don’t you think. He’s still telling the same lies and people are still listening. I wonder why –maybe it’s because they have let evolution replace the Bible as the true history of the world. That snake’s just as clever as he ever was.
Evolution sounds just like something he would have invented to keep men from listening to the truth.


I think he meant the collective knowledge of humankind will understand everything sometime in the very distant future, on the order of thousands of years. But he knows almost nothing about evolution or science, he is taking his first science course his sophomore year, and it isn't biology. He isn't atheist because of science, but because of theology/philosophy. He has no problem with people having faith, he just sees no reason to believe it himself.

Well you don’t have to teach creationism as such in the science classroom but when you teach evolution as shown by embryos, you should also teach that Haeckel was convicted of fraud for making those embryos look like they didn’t look in support of evolution.


Slight problem there, Haeckel and his drawings are no longer taught or showed in school. Now they show real images of embryos and what contemporary studies show.

When you teach paleontology, you should mention the problems with the Cambrian explosion, the gaps that seem to remain no matter how many billions of fossils we find;


Never took paleontology, but i'm unaware of the Cambrian problems, perhaps you would like to shed some light on this?

the problems with producing DNA by natural means; the fact that proteins don’t form spontaneously in a laboratory;


Evolution isn't about the formation of life, but how it diversifies once life was here. Anyways, most high school classes (and even introductory college courses) don't talk too much about abiogenesis beyond the basic concepts of the major hypotheses. This is probably due to the fact that so much chemistry is needed for abiogenesis that people wouldn't be able to understand it beyond 'a bunch of organic molecules on an asteroid hit the Earth and formed life in the hypothesis panspermia'. That and the scientific community is no where near having a good theory on the subject or narrowed down two or three theories on the subject.

the different ways that bones of dead things can be interpreted depending on your preconceptions (eg ape men).


Explain.

So many scientific evidences that should at the very least be mentioned. Why should one religion be favoured? There are two options –life appeared spontaneously by natural processes or life was created. Why not give the evidences for those two options without speaking of any particular religion?


Mainly because science isn't a religion to begin with, and there is no evidence to suggest that life was created out of nothing by a magical being, so any mention of such would be religious by nature and in violation of the first amendment.

In chemistry they "indoctrinate" you into oxygen theory over the phlogiston theory, but I doubt you will care about that.


Chemistry is quite different to evolution. Chemical principles can be demonstrated, observed, repeated. Evolution cannot.


Evolution is demonstrated, observed, and repeatedly observed over and over and over again, and has yet to be falsified through empirical evidence. Not to mention that chemistry has a lot to do with atoms and their electrical charge. But we have never observed an atom, let alone an electron, or proton, or neutron.  

Christians started all the modern fields of science.


I believe you, just give me a few moments to wipe away things like the Greek civilization, the middle east during medieval Europe (which was nearly all Christian by the way), and the Renaissance where people started to question the authority of the Church.

Evolution never got anybody anywhere.


Antibiotics, food, genetic algorithms... Yeah, evolution has done nothing for us.

Christianity never stunted scientific growth


I bring you to the dark ages, where Christianity is the dominant religion and it has such a hold on society that scientific progress is completely negated to the point where much of the knowledge gained by the Romans was lost and only survived thanks to the Muslims in the middle east.

And real science is observable and repeatable


Like evolution!

Nobody is sinless. But you do need somebody to take your punishment because God is just and he can’t just overlook your sins. That’s the whole point of Jesus Christ coming to earth.


I agree, but his idea of salvation is basically this: In order for Jesus to pay for your sins you have to repent of all sin and be sinless. Once you stop sinning Jesus can then save you, provided that you don't sin again. So he claims that he no longer sins.

(Edited by Fencer27 9/17/2009 at 12:33 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:32 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As Yehren said, the more biology you have the more likely you are to accept evolution.


Actually the more evolution is forced upon you ,the more likely you are to believe it. I think that holds true for most things. Depending on what’s being taught, you’re either being educated or indoctrinated.

Those "scientists" that don't are usually people with degrees in engineering, chemistry, and the like that don't have too much to do with evolution.

They have been indoctrinated to a lesser degree.

Never mind scientists are also taught to be open minded when it comes to evidence


Not where evolution is concerned. You are not allowed to choose in this department.
Now let's caste aside empty words and present some hard core evidence to support these claims you've made.


I assume you’re talking about the lack of gradualism in the fossil record? How do you think Gould and Eldredge came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium? It was the lack of gradualism in the fossil record that compelled them to explain it away. Would you like me to quote them?
Also head over to the relevant thread and see what is being said about dinosaur bones and blood elements and dragons in history right now if that is what you are referring to.

ID was presented and dismissed by the scientific community as pseudoscience, and then dismissed again in 2004 (I think) in the Dover trial by the legal system.


Evolution lost in the scopes trial. Then look what happened. The story is far from over and evolution is a metaphysical belief system that cannot be falsified so it is pseudoscience.

What don't we know that can be explained by the creation model, beyond God did it the end.


What don’t we know about the past that can be explained by the evolution model with anything other than plausible made-up stories about how evolutiondidit.

He has no problem with people having faith, he just sees no reason to believe it himself.


In other words (whoever we are talking about?) has faith that there is no God.

Slight problem there, Haeckel and his drawings are no longer taught or showed in school. Now they show real images of embryos and what contemporary studies show.


You mean they show new pictures and tell the old story.

Never took paleontology, but i'm unaware of the Cambrian problems, perhaps you would like to shed some light on this?


The biological big bang? You never heard of it? The lack of evidence for gradualism between unicellular organisms and a huge array of suddenly arrived multicellular invertebrates which themselves are unconnected by any signs of gradualism? It’s the biggest missing parts story of all because we have so many invertebrate fossils and so just where we should have the best evidence of gradualism, we have none. Luckily there is a new movie coming out this month called “Darwin’s Dilemma –The Mystery of the Cambrian Explosion” –that should help you.

Sorry got to go so I'll finish this reply later.

 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:12 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Quelle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, you're not going to hell.  Don't let the doctrinal pharisees worry you!


-------
So When Was The Flood?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:28 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:48 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Sorry that I havent read the entire thread yet.
but as I was reading I came across this and thought I should speak up:
Quote from AFJ at 9:00 PM on September 9, 2009 :
First of all.  No man is supposed to judge another man.  Matthew 7:1  Do not judge or you will be judged.


I believe that AFJ (and many other who agree with him) have misinterpreted this passage.
because Matthew 7:1 is quoted alone it is taken out of context.


You have no trouble taking quotes out of context when it's to your own benefit.

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:17 PM on September 13, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:44 PM on September 13, 2009 :

I am just a thinker


Then start demonstrating it.


I am not going to make any claims about the origin of the universe. I am simply going to give a quote and allow the rest of you to decide what to make of it:



"one could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe has existed forever or the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it has existed forever"
Page 9 of "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking


Is quote-mining a sin?  How about looking at the quote in context:

When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.

If you are a thinker, think for yourself and don't copy.


Take the log out of thine own eye.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:10 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.