Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TimothyVI]

I was happy to see this topic posted, as well as the links.
It couldn't have come at a better time.

My wife and I had jsut watched a show on TV about evolution.
Actually, the only reason that we watched it was that the title
of the show was missleading. It was " was Darwin wrong".

We thought that finally some one was going to show scientific
proof to the world that Darwin's theory was a fallacy. Instead, the entire
show went out of it's way to prove that Darwin was correct.
After the show, my wife felt down, and said that she did not want
to watch that kind of show ever again. She is new to the faith and is
growing in her faith, so is easily sidetracked and confused. I wanted to watch it to see Darwinism rebuked
but that didn't happen. Although I could see loopholes in all of their conclusions.

This thread came the next morning, and the links offered good clear scientific
proof that the entire theory of Darwin is all wet. I shared this with my wife just to show
her that all scientific reasoning did not agree with the writers of that rediculous
" documentary".

Maybe this forum is not the right place for this kind of post,
but I think that God presented it for me at just the right time.
I do not believe in coincedences.

Thanks to the Mods for not deleeting it.

Tim

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

To all,

  Here is that link to the Evolution vs. Creationism website.  You can view the topics as a guest but have to become a member to post anything.

  (Sorry but linking to debate Forums is outside the parameters of this Forum, I hope no offense is taken. Joe)


  To Timothy,

  I am glad that this thread served a purpose.  That's good.  I hope that all your questions get answered. 

  Sincerely,


  Anne C. McGuire

[Pax Vobiscum]

Am I compelled to make a few comments here or am I being compelled?  But I guess the free will discussion is elsewhere....

This is indeed a lively discussion of the topic.  Personally, I enjoy any discussion as long as the arguments are respectful, authentic and honest.


First, LRS is quoted as saying that Darwin himself did not think his theories were plausible.  I wish he would have included a citation, but as close as I can tell he may be referring to the close of Chapter 14 in the Origin of the Species a book written in 1859!  Darwin admits that some of his conclusions are unsupported.  Now unsupported and not plausible are not interchangeable terms in this context.  If this is the basis for LRS's comments, then perhaps we can approach this from a different perspective.

Have you actually ever read any of Darwin?

Darwin's theories were merely a launching point.  We have 150 years of scientific knowledge that has plenty to say on this subject.  True, if one's launch point is flawed one's conclusion are likely flawed, but this is also one of the major problems with creationism (which has evolved its argument to intelligent design!).

Now we get to Paley's "watch and the watchmaker" type analogies.  His famous treatise has mutated into the dollar coins standing on-edge, mousetrap in the forest, and the monkey typing Hamlet's famous soliloquy by chance (this poor monkey has been said to have tried the Declaration of Independence also!).  Clever, yet flawed (especially the monkey typist -- or should we evolve that to word processor?!).  Biology doesn't claim to work that way, but there's not enough time for that now.

To say that genes don't mutate is a flat-Earth argument.  Genes mutate. So rather than try to deny that they mutate, let's find out why and how.  Whether entire organisms mutate is still unsupported, but is pausible based on the evidence.  So, did you get your flu shot?  I did.  Why?  Because H. flu mutates and I don't want to get this year's flu!  Ask my wife, a breast cancer survivor, if genes mutate.  Ask a person of European decent with hemochromotosis or a person of African decent about sickle cell anemia.  How about the Jew with Tay-Sachs?  List list is sadly impressive.  Get the flu shot, please.


The biggest flaw of this whole discussion (not just here, but worldwide) is that disproving the Theory of Evolution does not make Intelligent Design Theory any "right-er!!"

Two people are looking at what we call a grapefruit.  One person claims it is an orange (Mr. O)and the other claims it is a lemon (Ms. L).  Mr. O makes big talk about how it looks like an orange, grows where oranges grow, looks like an orange, grows on a tree like an orange, looks like an orange, feels like an orange, and finally, looks like an orange.  Ms. L acknowledges that this fruit meets many of Mr. O's criteria, but maintains that it is not an orange (a completely different argument than it is a lemon:  It does not smell like an orange, it does not grow on orange trees, it does not taste like an orange, therefore, it must be a lemon.  Mr. O counters in much the same way concluding that only a fool would call it a lemon.  They are both correct only as far as disproving the other!  Mr. O is correct saying that the fruit is not a lemon and Ms. L is correct concluding that the fruit is not an orange.  Moreso, they are both incorrect because they are not presenting an argument, they are promoting an agenda!  This puts their entire argument (even the "correct" parts) into doubt.

Conviction is a psychological state often presented as "truth."

(Deep Breathe....)

It pains me when I read of the poor wife whose faith was rattled by a television show which presented something other than what she believed.  I am sure that the people who produced the show were just as convinced that they were correct.  Don't hang your faith on esoterica, dear woman.  Stick to the glorious Good News of God's presence in our lives!

Along those lines, the wisest thing I have read in this thread was from Andrevan who said, "[w]e don’t need evolution in Christian theology/doctrine..."   It is not necessary to the faith or the promise.  Nicely put.

In short, some day we will all know which parts of Scientism were correct and which sections of Creationism were correct.  In the mean time, let's have fun trying to figure out this Gordian Knot -- knowing that we never will understand it all.

Peace



 

[hillsbororiver]

There is no doubt that genes mutate, but the mutation degenerates the cell or creature. Show me a birth mutation that is not a birth defect. Has anyone witnessed a birth mutation where the creature is born improved over the relative condition or potential of the parents? It is true that a one legged man and a woman who had been partially paralyzed from polio can have "normal" healthy children (I am the result of a union such as this) but are we to believe that an uncaused or uninfluenced series of mutations results in an improved species? Where else in any observable form does this happen in life, what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy? Things that are not positively influenced or maintained tend to degenerate, this is true of inanimate objects as well as living creatures.

Would cancer or sickle cell be considered a positive or negative situation? I think we know the answer to that.

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe

[Pax Vobiscum]

I knew I should have stuck with the NT!

But since I am in this deep...

I absolutely agree that entropy is the biggest hurdle in the Scientists' way.

Also, I would say that the viral/bacterial adaptations which allow for survival of the species is a positive.  How about the darkness of the skin for those in harsh sunlight (or lightening of the skin for those in middle climes -- I am not sure which is the "mutation"?  How about the camel conserving water?

AND....

If Evolution Theory is wrong, what makes Intelligent Design the correct alternative?  It has as many (if not more) hurdles to jump.

My only gripe here is the strong rhetoric of the arguments.  My personal position is that they are both woefully wrong, if that wasn't clear.

Peace

[TimothyVI]

Joe, you beat me to that very post.

Quote by Pax. "In short, some day we will all know which parts of Scientism were correct and which sections of Creationism were correct.  In the mean time, let's have fun trying to figure out this Gordian Knot -- knowing that we never will understand it all."

Oh, but I think you are wrong. With the armour of God we can slice through the false science of micro evolution just like Alexander the Great sliced through the Gordian knot. I don't think that there is any room for believers to agree with any micro evolution unless they are believing that God caused it. Which I have to agree could be possible, but I can't imagine God taking the long way around to get to his objective of creating man.

This can't become an argument about specific beliefs or we will put the moderators on the spot and they will end up having to close this thread. And as I stated earlier, the links in this thread have already helped me to ease my wife's mind. So it was a good thing.

Tim

[Pax Vobiscum]

Just to lighten things up, how 'bout a little Dilbert?

Dilbert writes a poem and presents it to Dogbert:

DOGBERT: I once read that given infinite time, a thousand monkeys with typewriters would eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare.
DILBERT: But what about my poem?
DOGBERT: Three monkeys, ten minutes.
(Scott Adams, Dilbert comic strip, 15 May 1989.)

Just be sure to get your flu shot!
Peace

[hillsbororiver]

If Evolution Theory is wrong, what makes Intelligent Design the correct alternative?  It has as many (if not more) hurdles to jump.

My only gripe here is the strong rhetoric of the arguments.  My personal position is that they are both woefully wrong, if that wasn't clear.

Peace

Hi Pax,

I can agree with that, the way Intelligent Design is postulated I do not see as being an absolute of any kind.

Science has produced many beneficial things but always keep in perspective that science is constantly changing, yesterdays facts are todays follies. It is an idol of the heart for many.

I am not embarressed to admit I do not know how God created the earth and everything in it, but I know He did. Ray gave a very good presentation on how the literal 7 (our 24 hour) day theory just doesn't fit at the Mobile Conference last September.

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe

 

[hillsbororiver]

Hello again Pax,

I do not see how flu shots prove evolution, it appears that they work in conjunction with our God given immune systems, the following is from MayoClinic.com



The flu vaccine changes annually. Production begins with public health authorities working together to make a highly educated guess as to what strain of influenza will strike next. This is based on analysis of samples from people with respiratory illnesses worldwide.

Next, three strains of influenza virus are grown in the lab, which are then killed in order to produce the vaccine. Once the vaccine is injected into a person, the immune system reacts by producing antibodies programmed to attack the dead virus. If the person is then exposed to the flu, his or her immune system recognizes the virus and destroys it, preventing disease.

However, vaccines are not foolproof. There's still a chance of getting the flu. If you do, there are drugs to help decrease the symptoms and the duration of the illness.

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe

[Phazel]

Another issue is that science education nowdays doesn't like the separation of  "micro" vs "Macro" evolution.

On the true origin site I linked to previously, look up an article entitled  "talk origins  deception by omission"

The statement heard alot  "evolution happens"  is an undisputable fact and observable.

But,  descent through modification is really where the issue is.


The problem is that science education is so watered down the average proponent of evolution claims that there is no distinction between the two.

Mosquitoes evolving to a different species of mosquito and the possibility that all the small changes observed in our genome will eventually change that mosquito into something outside what we would call a mosquito is virtually the same.
 

I haven't read it for a while, but I think the article I cited above goes into much more detail about this.

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

Joe,

  Got a question is there any written notes about Ray's Mobil COnference given in September.  I would like to read those if they are available.  Can you post the link in the window if it is available?

  Thanks.


  Sincerely,


  Anne C. McGuire

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Anne,

Craig has posted the audio from the Conference but the written notes were more of an outline than anything else. Ray would veer off in many different directions as one topic or verse would dovetail into another train of thought. This is why I wouldn't miss the chance of attending a Conference, the treasures are piling up from start to finish, leaving all those who were there wanting more.

Have you tried downloading any of the audios yet?

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe     

[longhorn]

Lucy, my chicken who sleeps on the front porch on a pillow of hay next to my two cats, survived an attack from an angry and hungry raccoon last night, so all is good and well here in east Teaxas, as far as the the evolution crap goes, we here at the farm could care less.

Love in Christ

Longhorn

[Deborah-Leigh]

Hey Lonhorn

Happy to hear about Lucy.    The chickens walk the streets quite freely here in my part of the world unless they just disappear because they become someone's dinner!

As for the evolution crap goes,, ......can't say I am not interested.....would be good for the dinner pot to see a chicken become a Turkey .....What's that about speaking as a fool

Peace to you

Arcturus

[andrevan]

Dear Tim, my heart rejoices at hearing that this thread helped you. We should never underestimate the methods God uses to call us out of the dark and into the light (the Truth!). I hope this thread (and links) helps your wife with her new faith, I pray it helps her seperate scientific fact from science fiction  .

There have been many good points made on this thread, they were a benefit to me. The subject of mutations is interesting, as Joe correctly stated, mutations do occur. We know that speciation also occurs, as does natural selection and adaptation. What these mechanism do not do is create new, different & previously non-existent life forms, not even gradually.

Bacteria have very fast generation cycles, the cycles may be as short as 15 minutes (they multiply real quick). After scientists subject bacteria to huge amounts of genetic mutations over long periods of time, what is their status after all these mutations? They were still bacteria, they did not mutate into anything else. More importantly they have not gained any new ex nihilo genetic code. Better get some more nails for that evolutionary coffin  . This is the most necessary requirement for the evolution of all life from a primordial cell(s) to work. This one scientific fact destoys the half-baked story of biological evolution.

Think of how many breeds of dogs or cats we have today. How was this done? Through breeding by selection, similar to natural (in the wild) selection. The 'purer' the breed, the less genetic variation that breed contains, compared to a mixed breed. A small dog breed has no more genetic code for large size, it has been lost. This is opposite to what the evolution of life demands.

What I observe from nature: creatures always reproduce after themselves, just as God ordained it in Genesis 1.

Some time ago when I read through Darwin's "The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", I was drawn to the part in bold, it still makes me feel sick today. Just recently Richard Dawkins, the high priest of atheism, alluded to this type of thing, namely eugenics, in his letter to Scotland's Sunday Herald. Eugenics is something Hitler used to promote his genocide. Darwin's theory of natural selection has a dark side to it when it comes to mankind.

As for intelligent design, how many of their leaders give God our Father and His Son the credit for the amazing life and universe around us?

For me personally, I believe 1 Timothy 4:10 and Exodus 20:11, 31:17 and Mark 10:6 by faith. I believe God's Word, not man's (scientist's) assumptions  .

Love to you all.
Andrevan.

[Kat]

This has been an interesting disussion, but it is all beyond me, so I have stayed out of it 

But I did want to bring forward what Ray has said on this topic, from his letter to John Hagee.

http://bible-truths.com/hagee1.htm ----------------------------------

When you boast, Mr. Hagee, saying that you found Christ all by yourself, you are telling your international audience that everyone else is, therefore, responsible for finding Christ "all by themselves." Charles Darwin taught "survival of the fittest," and you teach "salvation of the wisest." According to you, one must be wise enough to find Christ, accept Christ, and then qualify on his own to be saved.

This "bootstrap" mentality of self-qualification for salvation is nonsense, Mr. Hagee. But let me be more Scripturally "exact." Paul said he had many more reasons to have "confidence in his own flesh" than anyone. But when Christ called Paul (yes, Mr. Hagee, Christ called Paul - Paul did not find Christ "all by himself"), he said:

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ" (Phil. 3:, King James Version.

There is a parallel between your teachings and the teachings of atheistic evolutionists. Those learned men who promulgate the hypothesis of evolution (I say "hypothesis," because there isn't any scientific proof that would elevate it to a "theory"), use the same authoritative language in their writings to prove the unprovable as you do. Surely (non-thinking people reason) since hundreds and thousands of learned scientists point to nature and science for their proof, then what they teach concerning evolution, must be true. And, surely (non-thinking Christians reason) since hundreds and thousands of learned clergymen point to the Holy Scriptures for their proof, then what they teach concerning Christ, must be true.

Mr. Hagee, you have about as much Scriptural proof that man must find God and qualify for salvation all on his own, as evolutionists have scientific proof that all the species evolved from the same ancestor, all on their own-NONE! You have about as much Scriptural proof that God is going to torture most of His children in the fires of a Hell for eternity, as evolutionists have scientific proof that life spontaneously generated itself from dead sea slime - NONE!

"Proof" is evidence that something is true. Just saying something isn't proof of its validity. One can say that since outdoor dogs grow longer hair during extended periods of cold weather, that they are "evolving long hair." Is that true? No. The ingenious mechanism that enables a dog to grow long hair in cold weather is already built into the dog's physiology - it is "evolving" nowhere.

One can say that animals "reproduce by evolving through thousands of stages of mutations." But, is that true? No. The laws of science prove and have proven, millions and billions of times, that animals reproduce just as the Scripture states: "after their kind." Yet millions believe these intellectual falsehoods, just as millions believe the theological falsehoods I have countered in this letter.

And just like evolutionists, Mr. Hagee, you say things that you claim are Scriptural, but are not. You teach that a man's soul has immortality. But is that true? No. There is NO scientific proof that man has an immortal soul. And the Scriptures plainly tell us that "Christ ONLY has immortality," and that "man is MORTAL."

You teach that "the dead" are actually "alive" in a different geographical location. Is that true? No. There is NO scientific evidence that dead people or dead animals are alive at a different geographical location. And the Scriptures plainly tell us that "death is sleep," with "no knowledge, no thoughts, not anything." This is in full agreement with what science knows about death. And yet, millions believe these theological lies So who are we to believe? Evolutionists or True Science? John Hagee or the Word of God?

Evolutionists deny the very scientific evidence that they study to supposedly prove their hypothesis. And you, Mr. Hagee, deny the very Scriptures you preach from in trying to persuade others of your theories. Most people do not know, actually, factually, and scientifically, what the hypothesis of evolution is based on, and most people have little knowledge of the Scriptures or how to study the Hebrew and Greek from which they were translated.

Give me just ninety minutes with any open-mined person of normal intelligence, and I will prove to him (scientifically), the fallacy of both spontaneous generation and evolution of the species from common ancestors. Give me ninety minutes with that same person and I will prove to him (Scripturally), the fallacy of your theories on Hell and all your false expressions that go with it.

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, asked his audience of evolution experts a most telling question. He later posed the same question to the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and again to The Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. All evolution experts. Here was his question:

"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, ANY ONE THING. . . that is TRUE?"

All he got was silence!

So, I likewise, Mr. Hagee, after going into the Hebrew and Greek meanings of many words, plus a mountain of Scriptural references, including the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, will now ask you: "Can you tell me anything about God's failure to save all humanity, or about most of God's children being tortured in a Hell fire for all eternity, that is TRUE? ... I'm waiting.

You teach a Godless Hell for the majority of mankind for all eternity. Do you even begin to understand the damage you cause by such unscriptural (not to mention anti Scriptural) teachings? This doctrine of eternal torment is now and has been, blaspheming the very name of God among the nations for hundreds of years!

Everywhere one turns today, he finds atheistic, Godless, evolution being taught. In the finest magazines like National Geographic. On all scientific and educational channels. The Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel. In virtually all public schools in America, Europe, and around the world. All major colleges and universities. Not as a theory, but as the FACT of evolution it is taught. Why? Where did this teaching come from? Who is condoning it?

Charles Darwin is the "father of evolution." Little improvement or changes have been made to his original premises regarding survival of the fittest or the origin of species. Darwin is the main man when it comes to evolution. Now, why did Charles Darwin reject God and start this global rebellion against God and His Word which continues unabated to this very day? Was it really "God" that Mr. Darwin was rebelling against, or the "Godless doctrines" of depraved men?

According to Gertrude Himmelfarb's biography of Darwin, "One of the passages which was deleted from the autobiography explained why Charles not only could not believe in Christianity but would not wish to believe in it. Citing the 'DAMNABLE DOCTRINE' that would condemn ALL DISBELIEVERS TO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, he protested that 'this would include my Father, Brother, and almost ALL MY BEST FRIENDS' - which made it an unthinkable, to say nothing of thoroughly IMMORAL, idea. There may be more sophisticated reasons for disbelief, but there could hardly have been a more persuasive emotional one." (p. 22) (Emphasis mine).

The damnable unscriptural teaching of eternal torment (which you enthusiastically shout from your pulpit) has probably done more to cause the name of God to be blasphemed among the nations than any other false teaching on Earth, including the teaching of evolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Anne,

You ask if there was any written notes from the conference,
well there is a transcript of the first session, but that is all there is written out.
Here is the link to it 

http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,1948.0.html

mercy, peace, and love
Kat

[hillsbororiver]

Excellent Kat,

Another "well done" on your stat sheet. 

His Love and Peace to you,

Joe

[JDH]

Dear Arc,
I am sorry that I must disagree with you.  You suggest that we should not love ourselves.  I don't think this is the teaching of God at all.  "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself"  If we are not to love ourselves then I guess we don't have to love our neighbors either. Perhaps it should have just been love the Lord your God.  Don't you know that those that think less of themselves actually behave more immorally. I'm not suggesting you love yourself more than others and certainly you should love God more than anything or anybody. But the idea that you should not love yourself is purely wrong.  God loves me.  Jesus loves me. Am I to believe that they are wrong?  Or am I to not be like them? In any case I love you and hope this will help you to love yourself.
Joel

[Snowfire]

I was thinking about the term “evolutionary”.   What is evolutionary about being marred in the hands of the creator.

What is evolutionary about the source of love and of  the ten commandments?

What is evolutionary about the spiritual.

What is evolutionary about being changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye?