Member
You have a good point. If Genesis got it wrong where does that leave the rest. Is that why you are clinging to a literal understanding because a metaphorical understanding would undermine your faith?
What does the future hold for Intelligent Design/Creationism and The Discovery Institute and those who reject the ToE?
You have a good point. If Genesis got it wrong where does that leave the rest. Is that why you are clinging to a literal understanding because a metaphorical understanding would undermine your faith?
Member
No evidence for that hypothesis. Why even mention it. Theistic evolutionists believe God was the originator of life. Not aliens. But God.
Active
Sure do. The Bible. The Author was there when it all occurred. Thus no evolution.
Putting a captial 'T' on the lie of evolution, doesn't make it any less a Lie. Note the captial 'L'. That means its a capital lie.
Quantrill
Moderator
Staff Member
It's not the scrutiny that brings any fear, for over 2 thousand years, greater minds than you have failed to bring Scripture down. The Rock who is my foundation has led me to be on solid ground.
No riddle, dear man. Plain to see, but to simplify it for you, as you do for us of the unscientific minds. When an item of food is on the self and the date of expiration has come. What do you do with it?
Your arguments are not new here. We have welcomed Athiests, Humanist, etc. and will continue to do so probably even after you and I are long gone.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
<><
Moderator
Staff Member
Understood, however, a Creationist may believe that the Christian "God" is the point, but a person who believes in "Intelligent Design", does not necessarily believe so. They just are acknowledging that so far Science has so far failed to consider anything greater than themselves in the equation which is it's own prejudice. Very unscientific to exclude something because as of yet one is unable to quantify it in an acceptable manner. To do so with all things yet unknown would surely stifle any future scientific discoveries won't it? Would love to rework this paragraph, but........must give Cesar what belongs to Cesar. Off to work.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
<><
Active
In that Jesus endorsed the seventh sabbath day of rest from the creation week, not contesting those days were actual earth days, establishing that particular rest day had been observed every seventh earth day, definitely links the rest of scriptures to the Genesis record. So do the references to Adam and Eve. The Flood is affirmed in the New Testament. I know and have a living relationship with Jesus, with no doubting of what God recorded, settling my trust in the Bible record forever.
When I began higher education there was a required freshman philosophy course called "The Study of Logic and Exercise of Reason". It ought to be required for everyone. The reason is that you have demonstrated a deep need to catch up, like probably a majority of people today. There are good books available to help.
I followed the Geology curriculum, with minors in other sciences due to the obvious anticipated interactions between related disciplines, which extended the typical 4 year plan to 6. Employment in geology led to other fields. Along the way I learned a very interesting truth about evolution.
In high school, my biology teacher, who was a Christian, as were apparently all our teachers, explained that we had to master evolution. In her talks about that she was careful to point out key phrases in the textbooks. "Class, when a fact is given that begins with "It is believed", be cautious that you are reading a sentence that could easily be a counter-conditional sentence that creates a false fact." It took me some time to apply that unforgettable lesson within a lesson. Those textbooks were full of those statements. Facts were constructed, not upon observable science methods, but upon conjecture. Much conjecture was required, and still is, to get around the total lack of transitional fossil evidence ('missing links') that might support evolutionary origins of species.
I've had to return for more courses as required by employers, seeing that now evolution is rammed down throats by mostly atheist professors who often rail against Christianity and creationist thinking, warning us we do have a course to pass. Neither of those type students will receive an "A" if their identity is known. The unfair treatment of young students is just awful. They make the mistake of making comments that give professors an open door for abuse, ridicule, shaming. They are not being taught how to think, but what to think.
In the field, however, our free time is and never was about work or beliefs, but is about issues. I have never once met a university researcher/scientist/technician that believes in evolution while away from their institution and direct peers. "It doesn't matter. I'm not interested in that." Some shrug it off lest they pay a price in their career, especially undergraduates working under a grant. Actually most don't care about that or anything about origins, whether Christian or not. It's considered an addictive internet fixation by professionals. None of that has a direct influence on the disciplines outside of academia, classrooms, textbooks. The topic of origins is too frustrating, a big waste of time, far below politics, the economy and Hollywood.
Polls have shown a high level of belief in evolution due to bias in questioning. I've taken part in many of those, noting often they are worded to drive participants into one or two beliefs by avoiding a third, then choosing from the final two options to which you are likely to disagree somewhat with one, left with the other less disagreeable. You must make a decision in a step that automatically takes you to another that forces a little compromise. Someone pays pollsters to create polls that will yield a satisfactory conclusion, so questions are engineered toward that goal. How often would you suppose a poll about gun ownership winds up having you having to oppose guns to some degree even though a member of NRA and having a safe full of guns, and a shooting range membership? It happens. They will ask for comments where I lay out whatever bias I detect, and get occasional interaction.
When it's claimed most people in the world believe in evolution, consider that it's very unlikely most in the world have taken part in any poll. Most have not had enough education to comprehend evolution. It is assumed they believe that way. But why not assume most have never read a Bible or known anything about the Genesis record? Some have tribal myths of ancient origins along lines of their religion that resemble the Genesis account. I've never seen a poll investigating that. American Indians had myths of creation as a part of their cultures. How many in the world believe in creation along those ways?
Active
I'd like to clarify some terms.
Scientific Laws We all experience the law of gravity, what goes up must come down. Nobody has ever documented a verifiable event of an apple defying gravity, staying up in the air after released from the tree. It's unquestionable. So are the laws of thermodynamics, and Newton's laws of motion. It didn't require an imagination or test to establish a reality. A law can be inevitable with or without a starting point like an idea starting from philosophy, or a hypothesis, or theory. It's simply a true fact that proves the observation is repeatable and consistent, but can benefit from a theory that's proposed after a law is defined.
Scientific Theory Explanations of why laws work predictably, sometimes by combining laws to describe complex concepts, being currently defined as the most persuasive natural science cause and effect descriptions. These are subject to change and replacement upon establishment of new facts or changing observations. If the facts cannot be observed describing an observation of something in nature that can be measured repeatedly, usually produce the same conclusions. Variations, especially in measurements, keep the concept in the realm of mathematics but not be consistently observed in nature. An example of a threat to a theory is discovery of a faulty method of measurement used for it, or a sample tested is found to be corrupted. Advances in genetic science are rapidly changing facts used for some popular theories, threatening to make hypotheses out of them.
Scientific Hypothesis A probable reason for an observation, subject to sufficient testing to eventual upholding of a proposed concept. it can remain in that category due to some conflict with established theories or competitive hypotheses that also lack eligibility of a well received satisfactory explanation for an observation. Many hypotheses have come and gone, replaced by better ones.
Genetic science has reduced the supposed genetic similarity of humans and chimps from 98% to under 70%, which is highly significant information added to many other facts diminishing Darwinian evolution. Major advances in molecular science are finding for instance cellular chemical and electrical intricacies that prove our organs could not have evolved without instant death due to a single missing enzyme out of thousands necessary for human life.
Some secular scientists are resorting to extraterrestrial life "seeders" to explain origins of life, and other out-world hypotheses, far more "out there" than some who admit the creation account is probably better, but they will hold out for something better. Other world alien life has not been recorded as observed by science, having no evidence to belong in the realm of science, but is in fact a supernatural idea existing in their imaginations. Science fiction is more believable to many scientists. Do we wonder why that sort of idea can be more popular among describers of natural phenomena?
"Creation scientist" is an inaccurate title for real scientists who believe the Genesis account. All they need do is add proof disproving natural selection, then not even mention creation. They let the evolutionists self-destruct. Christian (and other religions) scientists are as capable as secular scientists to practice science. It's an error to assume Christians bias their work to prove their belief. They should be free to apply true facts in their conclusions that support their beliefs. It's interesting that scientists with belief in evolution or creation actually work together in labs and in the field, and are separately making discoveries that at least demand acknowledgement of the findings of creation origins. Many evolutionists are gradually stepping away from taking a view of "mysteries" when confronted with evolution-busting evidences. However, it isn't uncommon for a molecular biologist discovering a fact that threatens paleontologists. then experiencing a demotion or worse (if not tenured), or perhaps denial of another university grant for further research.
Sitting in a convention, listening to scientists who believe the Bible present their science discoveries is as amazing as any other venue. When they present conclusions that lend solid support to some aspect of creation by God as recorded in Genesis, seeds are planted in unbelievers who can't deny true facts, and encourages believers under intense pressure to compromise.
There are increasing numbers of schools, public and private, all levels of education, where students are studying evolution to meet state requirements, but also creation science, being taught to think, and teachers using Bibles in English Lit. They are finally exercising their rights without fear, backed by Christian law groups offering free services making it too expensive for atheists to challenge. Our improving USSC is likely to shut the antagonists down if they pursue to that level, which is actually not needed. Parents are very pleased over their children growing up with intelligence lost on the latest two generations locked into an atheistic educational environment.
So, the future of science, and methods like Intelligent Design bridging gaps that separate reasonable discussion of perspectives like natural selection hypotheses and science supporting creation, looks good.
Scientific Laws We all experience the law of gravity, what goes up must come down. Nobody has ever documented a verifiable event of an apple defying gravity, staying up in the air after released from the tree. It's unquestionable. So are the laws of thermodynamics, and Newton's laws of motion. It didn't require an imagination or test to establish a reality. A law can be inevitable with or without a starting point like an idea starting from philosophy, or a hypothesis, or theory. It's simply a true fact that proves the observation is repeatable and consistent, but can benefit from a theory that's proposed after a law is defined.
Scientific Theory Explanations of why laws work predictably, sometimes by combining laws to describe complex concepts, being currently defined as the most persuasive natural science cause and effect descriptions. These are subject to change and replacement upon establishment of new facts or changing observations. If the facts cannot be observed describing an observation of something in nature that can be measured repeatedly, usually produce the same conclusions. Variations, especially in measurements, keep the concept in the realm of mathematics but not be consistently observed in nature. An example of a threat to a theory is discovery of a faulty method of measurement used for it, or a sample tested is found to be corrupted. Advances in genetic science are rapidly changing facts used for some popular theories, threatening to make hypotheses out of them.
Scientific Hypothesis A probable reason for an observation, subject to sufficient testing to eventual upholding of a proposed concept. it can remain in that category due to some conflict with established theories or competitive hypotheses that also lack eligibility of a well received satisfactory explanation for an observation. Many hypotheses have come and gone, replaced by better ones.
Genetic science has reduced the supposed genetic similarity of humans and chimps from 98% to under 70%, which is highly significant information added to many other facts diminishing Darwinian evolution. Major advances in molecular science are finding for instance cellular chemical and electrical intricacies that prove our organs could not have evolved without instant death due to a single missing enzyme out of thousands necessary for human life.
Some secular scientists are resorting to extraterrestrial life "seeders" to explain origins of life, and other out-world hypotheses, far more "out there" than some who admit the creation account is probably better, but they will hold out for something better. Other world alien life has not been recorded as observed by science, having no evidence to belong in the realm of science, but is in fact a supernatural idea existing in their imaginations. Science fiction is more believable to many scientists. Do we wonder why that sort of idea can be more popular among describers of natural phenomena?
"Creation scientist" is an inaccurate title for real scientists who believe the Genesis account. All they need do is add proof disproving natural selection, then not even mention creation. They let the evolutionists self-destruct. Christian (and other religions) scientists are as capable as secular scientists to practice science. It's an error to assume Christians bias their work to prove their belief. They should be free to apply true facts in their conclusions that support their beliefs. It's interesting that scientists with belief in evolution or creation actually work together in labs and in the field, and are separately making discoveries that at least demand acknowledgement of the findings of creation origins. Many evolutionists are gradually stepping away from taking a view of "mysteries" when confronted with evolution-busting evidences. However, it isn't uncommon for a molecular biologist discovering a fact that threatens paleontologists. then experiencing a demotion or worse (if not tenured), or perhaps denial of another university grant for further research.
Sitting in a convention, listening to scientists who believe the Bible present their science discoveries is as amazing as any other venue. When they present conclusions that lend solid support to some aspect of creation by God as recorded in Genesis, seeds are planted in unbelievers who can't deny true facts, and encourages believers under intense pressure to compromise.
There are increasing numbers of schools, public and private, all levels of education, where students are studying evolution to meet state requirements, but also creation science, being taught to think, and teachers using Bibles in English Lit. They are finally exercising their rights without fear, backed by Christian law groups offering free services making it too expensive for atheists to challenge. Our improving USSC is likely to shut the antagonists down if they pursue to that level, which is actually not needed. Parents are very pleased over their children growing up with intelligence lost on the latest two generations locked into an atheistic educational environment.
So, the future of science, and methods like Intelligent Design bridging gaps that separate reasonable discussion of perspectives like natural selection hypotheses and science supporting creation, looks good.
Member
I,m glad - i would hate to cause someone to stumble and lose their faith. However regurgitating the same old is also not good for one either. Reality, facts, figures, reason and logic are not reasons why people believe. It goes much deeper than that. When one feels that they have touched God and that He has become a personal friend, who can reason them out of their experience, especially if they have become a better person and their life has changed for the good. That is why we get theistic evolutionists. Christians that incorporate scientific discoveries into their faith. I know most on this site don,t consider them to be Christians but they would argue that they are. They have also touched and talked and walked with God according to their teachings, revelation and insight.
Active
People can become a Christian but are not made disciples, having family/church situations that let each other become disciples however they can. Unprepared pastors often can't feed different levels of maturity in a congregation, perhaps favoring the 'mature' members, but not able to take 'babes' and 'teens' to heart.
Coming to this chat group is like one of those neglected "teen" disciples going off to college, there confronted by a powerful professor able to use logic, reason, threats to tear down any growth an immature Christian might have accumulated, resulting in confusion and fear. One must grow up strong in the Lord to resist that. It might begin with learning you won't earn a "A" grade unless essentially denying Jesus. The objective of being in the college is to gain knowledge and certification towards a career. So the students must choose whether to risk undeserved failure and speak up, or give in until receiving the degree. Yielding when unprepared to speak up with confidence takes a terrible toll on students who often return home as unbelievers, with none able to bring them back spiritually. Any who take the label "conservative" are likely to be persecuted too. Red hats are a sure cause of physical abuse. One professor might demand his class to march for abortion, or against guns, or capital punishment, or even against Christianity and in favor of Islam. It's bondage.
In fact, good preaching doesn't amount to only quoting scriptures. The very thought patterns you say are not why people believe in Jesus are in fact valid tools for anyone to be put in a state of clear thinking to be able to hear the small still voice of God. "Reality" is often personal testimony that rings an inner bell to listen to someone who has been through something you are experiencing. "God did it for me and can do it for you too." Billy Graham used all those skills to great success.. Logic is what Paul used at Mars Hill, which caused heathens to listen to his gospel and follow him for more. All those skills are continually in use here at TJ, some to the glory of God, some for glory of man, and some wittingly or not for the glory of Satan, even through science discussions anchored in sources from satanists, anti-Christ religions, atheists, agnostics and the simply deceived who are using science to destroy the Church if possible. The science angle is powerful due to a general ignorance of science, most having attained to a basic high school level using outdated textbooks, including specialized scientists and physicians who can't keep up with all fields.
At the same time some members enter in using those skills to damage believers who are less adapted to deal with powerful uses of those skills. Whether intended or not, I have witnessed many immature Christians give up believing online upon persistence of Muslims or other persuasions. I owned a chat group a decade past where at least 20 Hebrew Roots members took shifts constantly persuading, making it impossible to compete with them 24 hours a day. Then Muslims entered in doubling the damage, resulting in moderators quitting, worn out. Removing them did no good since they would come back under different identities. I didn't have a feature allowing me to sift IPs, so had to close it down after someone broke in doing great damage.
The Bible makes it clear repeating elements of the gospel is vital. Any growing church must have disciples at every level of growth, requiring the "regurgitation" of the old. Meat is introduced to babies slowly, methodically. It wouldn't be good to put a T-bone steak in front of a 4 month old.
Here's what I believe the Lord has to say about this today;
Acts 20:28-30 (KJV)
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
There are some of us here prepared to deal with wolves. In the range these days keepers of sheep use rifles with night vision to remove threatening coyotes. They use traps. They use electronic sound machines tuned to coyote ears, causing them pain, chasing them away. They take whatever measures to protect the flock or herd. Anything or anyone causing division requires marking, then removal if they persist. That's all in the natural, but certainly applicable to a Christian community.
There are two types of 'marking' for the Church to be mindful of doing as appropriate.
Romans 16:17 (KJV)
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Philippians 3:17 (KJV)
17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
I suppose this might ought to have made a new thread. It is said, though, specifically to deal with post 325141, from a mere member among ten thousand of TJ.
God bless our leadership here and those contributing posts to the glory of God.
-- Be fishers of men
·...¸><((((º>
.··´¯`·.¸.·><((((º>
·..·´¯`·...¸.·><((((º>