| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
michael
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 28
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Evolution is being taught as a 'theory' in schools, colleges etc.
But it is not a theory (using the word accurately)
It should in fact be called 'The Unsubstantiated Hypothesis of Evolution'.
The word 'theory' should be reserved for established scientific laws, such as 'the theory of gravity'.
It is absolutely amazing that there is no scientific support for evolution at all. What is taught as a theory is purely guesswork. There is no way that anyone can provide any scientific proof for evolution at all. Just take the trouble to study it and you see for yourself the lack of any scientific evidence.
Whether you agree with the evolution or not, it is a faith system equal to that of Genesis in the Christian Bible.
In fact the argument between evolution and Creationism is not what the argument should be about. The real argument is between evolution (the universe and all life formed by a series of random chances) and the existance of a Designer (who obviously designed the universe).
It shouldn't be an argument between evolution and Creation because Creation should, in my view, be viewed as part of the Christian Gospel and only Christians should be discussing whether they believe in it or not. Why would anyone expect a non-Christian to believe in Genesis 1?
The evolutionists are able to derail any criticism of evolution by saying that the only alternative is the Christian Gospel. To a non-Christian the obvious truth is evolution. Evolutionists don't have to 'prove' evolution, they just have to rubbish Christianity! All I have ever heard Dawkins do on the media is to assume the truth of evolution and to spend most of his time attacking Christians.
I have to admit (to be controversial) that I do not understand why any Christian would choose not to believe the Genesis description of Creation because it is woven throughout the whole of the Gospel. In my view it should be a faith issue. It is also important to consider that there is no other viable explanation to replace Creation as specified in the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elaine, "I think you're presenting opinion as fact" and "Are you sure that you are not using your own prejudices (in favour of creationism) to make a false case?" are hardly insults to stand alongside "Grow up" (you) and "Bobby doesn't know what he's talking about" (Paul). Even if I'd bluntly said "I don't believe you" that would only be disagreeing with you not insulting you. To insult you I'd have to call you a liar but you will note that I have done no such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 4751
Location: essex
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael You sound Like my Pastor talking. 
Nice Post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 4751
Location: essex
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE CAN YOU DO IT VIA PM'S AS ITS DRAINING, on the rest of us.
IMHO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| michael wrote: |
I have to admit (to be controversial) that I do not understand why any Christian would choose not to believe the Genesis description of Creation because it is woven throughout the whole of the Gospel. In my view it should be a faith issue. It is also important to consider that there is no other viable explanation to replace Creation as specified in the Bible. |
Absolutely correct. In my talks, I show how Jesus clearly believed Genesis to be absolute fact - a real, literal Adam, and a real literal 6-day creation. What the Christian who believes in evolution has to explain is this: why do you believe the words of fallible human beings, rather than believing the words of your Saviour and Redeemer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talitha Tetelestai
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amen Paul.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TT, is there any chance that this could be split into another thread?
I don't know how to do that yet 
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angel
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 4751
Location: essex
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Double Amen Brother.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talitha Tetelestai
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Of course, no probs, where would you like it split? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobby, at least I don't use words like fake, Predudices etc.
Paul says you don't know what you are talking about, and from your posts I suspect he is correct. You seem to want literalists to prove themselves yet not non-lteralists, not only does this show immaturity, it also begs the question can you actually back up what you're saying.
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michael
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| my last post could be good starting point |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talitha Tetelestai
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Elaine, click on the lastpost in this thread, you will see at the bottom of the post (outside the post box) a series of 4 icons,the last icon next to the padlock will take you to the page for splitting the thread.
You then tick the box at which you wish the new thread to be split away from the old one (ie you choose the first post in the new thread), you will also be aksed to provide a title for the new thread, and in which section you wish it to go, then press submit, and that will do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elaine wrote: | Bobby, at least I don't use words like fake, Predudices etc.
Paul says you don't know what you are talking about, and from your posts I suspect he is correct. You seem to want literalists to prove themselves yet not non-lteralists, not only does this show immaturity, it also begs the question can you actually back up what you're saying. |
Elaine, I have already backed up what I'm saying (about why I am not a literalist) so isn't it only fair and balanced that literalists justify their own position? Why is it so hard for literalists to explain why they believe Genesis, Jonah etc literally but can see the parables as fictional illustrations of a point? As for immaturity, I'm not the one doing all the whingeing just because my views are not necessarily accepted. I know that I wrote about your prejudices (nothing wrong with that word in its context is there? Suggest an appropriate alternative though and I shall be happy to amend my statement) but now that this thread has been split I can't find where I am alleged to have described you as fake. Perhaps you could show me the relevant post.
As regards what is taught in schools I asked my teenage daughter if she had been taught evolution as fact or theory. Her reply was that they were taught about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and although it was presented as the most commonly held viewpoint it was categorically not taught as undisputed fact. Of course my anecdotal evidence carries no more weight than your anecdotal evidence intrinsically but it does seem to disprove your assertion that schools routinely teach evolution as if it was fact.
So far nobody amongst the literalists has even attempted to explain how they see some parts of the bible as literal and not others. Is it because they see even the parables as literal events? If so then say it so at least I will know where you stand and won't have to repeat the question. One other observation I'd make is that for the vast majority of its history, Christianity has not insisted upon a literal understanding of the bible. The concept of Christian fundamentalism/literalism is comparatively a very modern phenomenon and seems to be confined to extreme evangelical Protestantism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobby, you have had explanations, but you do agree with them so you dismiss them.
I can't brainwash you into accepting the truth, neither can you brainwash me into accepting a fallible human concoction of dubious interpretation of something trying to replace God word.
If we both just accept this, perhaps we'd get on better.
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1324
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elaine, I am very content to accept that we don't (and won't) see eye to eye on some things. Why though is it wrong to expect reasoned argument rather than diatribe and rhetoric? What I would appreciate more though is a cessation of the personal insults that have been hurled at me. I'm not holding my breath for an apology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
