Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[VadeRetro]

Yeah, but he just died. Demons didn't rush out and melt his face or anything.

[editor-surveyor]

" Evolutionary theory is accepted by virtually all biologists, and most scientists..."

That is nonsense. I know quite a number of biologists, a number of whom are active in genetic reasearch in a leading firm, (in which we hold stock, and go to stockholders open house days) and most of them are of the opinion that the question of evolution is irrelevant to their work.

"And scientists is whom we consult on the subject of what is and isn't science."

No comment necessary! ;o)

[The_Reader_David]

"He who knew not sin, became sin for our sake."

Sheesh! (And no I can't quote chapter and verse--the Holy Apostle Paul wrote words to that effect, find a sola scriptura protestant if you want a footnote.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is nonsense. I know quite a number of biologists, a number of whom are active in genetic reasearch in a leading firm, (in which we hold stock, and go to stockholders open house days) and most of them are of the opinion that the question of evolution is irrelevant to their work."

Even if this is true, the point was whether they accepted evolution, not whether it was integral to their work. You moved the goalposts.

The fact remains most scientists (by a large majority) accept evolution. Only a tiny percentage reject it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Did this *becoming* sin mean Jesus sinned?

[Mamzelle]

Yes, but how many signed the Evo Loyalty Oath?

[Junior]

I think we're arguing apples and oranges here. Claiming he was arrogant and delusional IS NOT a logical fallacy. It's an accurate description. Not being allowed to post because one is arrogant and delusional is another matter altogether.

[hail to the chief]

Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, nobody worships Darwin. Dimensio may not have, but I am calling you a liar—and I think you will find that the Bible does not back you up.

[editor-surveyor]

"How gnostic of you.

How ignorant of you! - The Lord is in constant communication to all that are his. He keeps us safe, and healthy, and that is a promise he made to us in his word. Gnostics don't even believe that the Lord came to this earth and died on the cross. They also don't believe that he would talk to them (and they're probably right).

"I wonder if my friend the Christian minister knows God is supposed to talk to him..."

If your minister is not in constant communication with the Lord, then I'd be looking for another minister.

[Matchett-PI]

The preposterous "PresbyRev" needs to get up to speed with reality and truth:

The Divine Claims of Jesus
The "Son of Man" Title J. P. Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/sonofman.html

[darbymcgill]

I admit that I wasn't terribly polite

Respectfully noted... It's a virtual love fest here the afternoon... agreements abound..... :)

Except that he wasn't making an argument.

If he wasn't' making an argument then how could it be a lie?

[hail to the chief]

Apparently it will be great theatre.

[hail to the chief]

If I walk up to you, say "The earth is flat," and walk away without saying anything, I have lied without presenting an argument.

[donh]

That is nonsense. I know quite a number of biologists, a number of whom are active in genetic reasearch in a leading firm, (in which we hold stock, and go to stockholders open house days) and most of them are of the opinion that the question of evolution is irrelevant to their work.

Uh huh. How many would that be by actual count, and of those who have voiced an opinion to you that it's irrelevant, how many think it incorrect, and what do you imagine is the ratio of a few of your acquaintences, to the number of working biologists who embrace darwin's theory? You certainly know how to push poppycock with assured air of confidence.

[Dimensio]

If he wasn't' making an argument then how could it be a lie?

Single statements can be false without being arguments. For example, "John Kerry won the November 2004 election" is both a statement and a lie, but it would not be an argument.

[The_Reader_David]

I will leave you to argue against the others who are hawking the 'substitutionary atonement' theory of Christ's work of salvation.

I would like to point out to you, though, that those of us who follow Christ in what is arguably the living continuation of the original Church (commonly called the Orthodox Church now) find the theory of God providing Himself a blood sacrifice barbarous. Our hymnogaphy speaks of Christ "trampling down death by death," and sees the fundamentals of our salvation in the uniting of human nature to the Divine nature in the person of Christ.

The theory the others present ignorantly as standard Christian doctrine is actually a rather late and provincial development, being first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury after the Latin church had already fallen into heresy and schism. It is quite unknown in the Christian East (whether among Orthodox, Monophysite or Nestorian), and not universally accepted in the West, though one can find exponents of it in most Western confessions.

[stands2reason]

He's not my minister, he's my friend. And prayer is not like a phone call.

[editor-surveyor]

"Even if this is true, the point was whether they accepted evolution, not whether it was integral to their work. You moved the goalposts."

No, I have not moved any goalpost; those that have been willing to speak on the subject seem to feel that evolution is not the answer, but that does not necessarily mean that they are creationists in the context that we hold on these threads.

[editor-surveyor]

I'm not talking about prayer in the specific sense.

[The_Reader_David]

Read the whole quote.